Give a price to CO2 by Hulot

[Christophe]

Nicolas Hulot: "Give a price to CO2", Liberation, 24/10/07
Interview by G.La. and LN

According to the defender of the environment, a successful Grenelle goes through the implementation of an ecological tax system.

Do you think that the Grenelle has accelerated the environmental awareness of the French?

There will be a before and after Grenelle. It is not reckless optimism: something has happened, energies have been released. After the marketing era, we are operational. But France is so late that the effort will be heavy. The technologies are not ready, neither are the industries. We know for example that we need a big plan to renovate the old building. But for that, there will have to be training and resources. Everything has to be done.

What is for you the criterion of a successful Grenelle?

The determinant of Grenelle will be to be able to put a price on carbon. This is the analysis of all the economists who have looked at it: Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz ... To speak cynically, if we get ahead, the country will win the bet. If we are told tomorrow: we give ourselves two months to define the modalities of ecological taxation (on carbon), it will be won ... I made my religion, it is the backbone of public policies to come. Everything else is only peripheral arrangement.

How should we proceed ?

We need to review the standard, the regulations and the tax system. For the decisions taken after the Grenelle to be socially acceptable, these three pillars are necessary. Concerning the automobile, by the standard, one can increase the price of gasoline, and, by the regulation, force the manufacturers to manufacture less polluting, less energy-consuming and less powerful vehicles. If, by the regulations, you allow the consumer and manufacturers to acquire goods that consume less, you are a winner on both sides.

Between a state in “bankruptcy” and the question of purchasing power, how to impose an ecological tax?

Since the 90s, Sweden has embarked on the biggest tax reform of any OECD country. Which neither increased his deficit, nor reduced his growth. In France, a large part of our compulsory levies tend to save us labor, rather than energy. Taxation should be shifted from work to energy. The social partners almost have a common will. Francois Chereque (CFDT) or Bernard Thibault (CGT) have understood the social excitement that will be caused by increases in the price of energy. Cote Medef, Laurence Parisot could propose that the creation of the carbon tax be offset by the elimination of the professional tax. It is necessary to reduce the employer and salary costs to shift them to energy. You have to tell people this truth: if you don't pay for this insurance for the future today, it will soon be unaffordable.

Can France become ecologically exemplary?

Yes. When France soon takes over the presidency of the European Union, it could create a reinforced cooperation group on the subject of standards and taxation. Try to agree on the eight EU countries that emit the most CO2 to harmonize taxation and play on the VAT applied to products according to their impact on the environment.

It's a bit like the principle of the energy label.

It's a good idea, but I have two reservations: first, there are more than 70 references in supermarkets, labeling will therefore not be done overnight. Furthermore, one cannot count indefinitely on the good will of the consumer.

Borloo promotes green growth…

This generic term must not hide an obstinacy in unbridled growth. However, on certain points, it will be necessary to operate a decrease. If we want to avoid either a shortage or a drastic reduction in resources, for example fish, water, energy, we must reduce the levies on a global scale. And it is not to be dogmatic to say that. We are faced with an equation which summarizes all the contradictions of sustainable development: how to support economic growth taking into account flows which are scarce or which are unbearable given the environmental reality and global warming? There are very relevant things in the decay movement. And it is unfortunate that the Grenelle does the economy of a fundamental questioning, almost philosophical, on growth and, above all, on its compatibility with the reality of the ecological crisis.

During the Grenelle, the Attali commission made its conclusions. Are these processes not contradictory?

If. On the one hand, you have the Grenelle, or a civilizational rupture must be ordered, and, on the other, a commission, the object of which is to break the locks of growth without asking for a second the question of its perverse effects. These contradictions will have to be purged.

What do you think of the request to withdraw the precautionary principle?

This principle is the minimum of wisdom that society must acquire to slow things down. Wanting to remove it is more symptomatic than anything else.

What have NGOs gained from participating in the process?

During this Grenelle, the associations greatly helped the government to work. They showed him that opinion was ready, they started the pump of proposals and gained credibility. There was no clash, no one got out of the process. But our power, as an NGO, stops there. Now is the time for political truth.

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/even ... 991.FR.php

[Bougonnator]

Sacred Nicolas Hulot!
I will also ask TF1 to pay me for petrol and I too will be able to pollute the most beautiful sites on the planet with a squadron of helicopters and an army of cameramen landed from the plane. And if I was younger, as a journalist for France Inter, I would do the Paris Dakar as co-driver.

Thus, I will be able to ask for an increase in the taxation on gasoline since I no longer pay it. Too bad for those who need their vehicle to go to work, because Mr. Hulot forgets that the metro stops in zone 2.
Do what I say and not what I do.
Let's take the problem upside down, rather than letting our jealousies get carried away and spur our venom on the others who pollute more, why not offer bonuses for the purchase on recent vehicles, or subsidized campaigns of adjustments old engines. When I'm behind an old car like R19 Storia, Fiat Punto, Peugeot 205 XD, etc ... (I have nothing against these venerable vehicles and everyone drives with what they can) they spit black in my little lungs fault maintenance certainly. An adjustment campaign would certainly be beneficial for the aging vehicle fleet. It would be too good but we cannot offer a Pantone to any vehicle, however we can adjust it as well as possible.
Another thing: France is a transit country between southern and northern Europe. What action should be taken on all these vehicles which also pollute in our region? Does French have to pay for everyone?

[Christine]

The aptly named bougonator

For N.Hulot, it is obviously easy but not necessarily relevant. Besides, he never hid that, when he was younger, he was not at all aware of the environment but that it was his travels as a journalist that made him aware of the need to protect the environment .
The question should be put to N. Sarkosy, but it seems to me that we have not yet discovered the gene for ecology, which means that we are born ecological or not. So in the meantime, let the one who has never made a trip that is not absolutely necessary throw the first stone ...

An adjustment campaign would certainly be beneficial for the aging vehicle fleet.

Sure, but given the auto sales figures, I'm not so sure the fleet is that aging. We could also think of doing without the 2nd or 3rd family car and rationalizing its trips (among other things). In short, it would no longer be just "the others" who would be concerned.

What action should be taken on all these vehicles which also pollute in our region? Does French have to pay for everyone?

This is a question to which the president of the automobile club has already answered: he considers that automobile pollution in France is insignificant compared to all the pollution in the world and that therefore it is urgent to do nothing. Carpe Diem.

But hey, all of this takes us away from the original article, which argues in favor of a radically different conception of the economy and society where ecology is an essential data that we would cease to ignore.

[fc89]

Hello,

Once again, the state does not offer a real solution, so let's pay!
And it is still the most underprivileged who will foot the bill, they cannot afford a new car, so ... "they pay !!!".
You really have to be a minister for such reasoning!
By cons help us with rates at 0% for the purchase of a new vehicle, this did not even touch the mind of our M ...
Soon we won't even be able to breathe without paying, right N.Hulot?
I really want to sing the Marseillaise, "To the citizens arms ..."
A+

[Christine]

I see that we will have to explain once again why, like JM Jancovici, we think that an increase in the price of fossil fuels is an essential decision.

1)
- The price of oil is extremely low given the services it provides.

- So we tend to waste it

- We have become totally dependent on it

2)
- Oil is a resource that will eventually run out

- The day oil becomes scarce, prices will explode

- As our whole society is dependent on oil, we can fear a hard socio-economic crash the day it runs out

3)
- We must prepare for the inevitable price increase, which is likely to be violent

-We need to prepare for the shortage


4) A gradual, anticipated and controlled increase in the price of fuel would:

- to smooth out the effects of a sudden and sudden increase

- to invest in renewable energy projects or other socio-economic projects. So finance the post-oil with oil money itself

- to push consumers to sobriety (so that they do not have a hangover later)



Other advantages are added to this, such as the relocation of the economy (making it more expensive to produce far away than to produce locally = jobs ...), the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Greenhouse, ...

We had already had a long but fascinating debate about this here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/lisez-le-p ... t2209.html

[fc89]

Re,


No government will accept to lose control of the energy products of current consumption, roughly the VAT.
How do you want to tax free energies.
For the carbon tax, it will only give work again if there is a total parity of all the importing countries.
This tax will only make matters worse, what will happen to workers already exploited abroad, I'm afraid he will pay with their sweats.
A+