Greens: ecological transformation of the economy

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Greens: ecological transformation of the economy




by Christophe » 29/05/09, 20:45

Ah !! Greens want to do econology, even if the word is not mentioned!

Ecological transformation of the economy

Green Members' Bill

First session, Thursday, May 28, 2009 - Extracts from the official report:

Interventions by François de Rugy, Rapporteur, and Yves Cochet.


Madam President. The next item is the discussion of the bill proposed by Mr. François de Rugy and several of his colleagues relating to the ecological transformation of the economy.

I call Mr François de Rugy, rapporteur for the Committee on Economic Affairs, the Environment and the Territory.

Mr. François de Rugy, rapporteur for the Committee on Economic Affairs, the Environment and the Territory. Madam Chair, Mr. Secretary of State for the Development of the Capital Region, ladies and gentlemen, before I get to the bottom of this, allow me to make a formal remark. After our group chairman, I would like to say how shocked we are at the conduct of these private members' debates. We were told about revaluing Parliament. What do we see now that we want to implement it? Our colleagues in the UMP group are fleeing the debate, despite those of them, whom I thank, present this morning on our benches.

Mrs. Marie-Christine Dalloz. In this regard, we do not run away more than you! (Exclamations on the benches of the GDR group.)

Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, let the rapporteur speak.

Mr. François de Rugy, rapporteur. If I believe the yellow sheet, you do not even intend to use the speaking time to which you are entitled. On the UMP group's legislative proposals - notably that relating to incest - we were numerous, in opposition, to intervene and support the amendments: everyone can verify it by referring to the minutes.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Door. No aggression, it is useless!

Mr. François de Rugy, rapporteur. I also want to note - see no attack on you, Mr. Secretary of State - the attitude of the Government, whose members directly concerned by our text have not even bothered to move. ("Oh!" On the benches of the UMP group.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Door. This is not very pleasant either!

Mr. François de Rugy, rapporteur. To revalue Parliament, the Government should nevertheless lead by example!

There is even more serious. As announced by the Secretary of State for Relations with Parliament, the vote will be reserved. Is it to save the UMP group from having to sit on a Thursday? I do not know ; the fact remains that the Government, using article 44, paragraph 3, of the Constitution - to which article 96 of our rules refers, which Mr. Karoutchi cited -, not only defers the vote on the articles for several days after the debate, but above all prevents, today as next Tuesday, the vote on the amendments, so that we will debate it in a vacuum: our fellow citizens must know these maneuvers.

I say this with a certain sadness: when we empty the debate of its substance to this point, it is Parliament that we empty of its substance, which is all the more shocking because, I repeat, we talked about revalue it. This says a lot about the objectives of the constitutional reform adopted last July!

I come to the bottom, which is also linked to the form: I fear very much, indeed, that this does not prevent a real substantive debate. We are well aware that our proposals have no chance of being adopted as they are, except to believe that the Assembly suddenly surrenders to our arguments or that the majority renounces its positions. But let's have at least a debate! This would allow the majority to make counter-proposals: I would therefore have found it interesting that it defended a certain number of amendments.

Moreover, during our committee meeting, several colleagues from the UMP group told us that there was no need to present any proposal in ecological matters, on the pretext that the Grenelle of the environment is being transcribed legislative. Quite frankly, I am surprised - including in my report - that this argument from the Grenelle is continually resisted to us. It's an alibi, a bad alibi. Isn't there precisely a problem in pushing the adoption of the Grenelle more and more? Consider that it took us two years - I insist: two years! - to adopt the law known as "Grenelle 1", which is however only a "law of orientation and intention"! The real concrete measures will be taken only with the law known as "Grenelle 2" which, certainly, was transmitted to us a long time ago already - almost a year -, but whose examination has not yet started, neither in the Assembly nor in the Senate. Without fear of being wrong, we can think that at least one year will still pass before its adoption. In short, it will have taken three years, since the Grenelle working groups have given their conclusions, for the legislative device to be adopted! Agree that a Government that prides itself on responding quickly to emergencies could not express such disinterest in ecological questions - that is in any case the conclusion I come to. To note the number of subjects on which the Government declares the emergency, we understand how you consider that the Grenelle is secondary.

Basically, behind these questions of the parliamentary agenda, your priorities appear, implicitly. Ecological issues are no longer part of it - I very much doubt that this has ever been the case.

Similarly, in your various recovery plans, you give absolutely no importance to ecological projects, which constitute - all independent and external studies of different institutes show it - only a tiny part, an epsilon, in some way so. In addition, you take advantage of these stimulus plans to go back, whether it is your investment choices, which highlight projects that many players in the ecology had nevertheless deemed "grenello-incompatible", or the adoption of regressive measures. So, even though the Grenelle is slow to be adopted, other measures are adopted very quickly - I am thinking for example of measures relating to installations classified under the protection of the environment, but also to the decision to Mr. Devedjian, whom he announced in the press, to return to the public interest investigation mechanisms in order to streamline procedures and remove certain protections.

Basically, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, Mr. Secretary of State, you do not believe in the green recovery. We, on the contrary, believe in it, and we are not alone, as illustrated by the choices of the governments of other countries. I will cite two examples, and not the least: the United States and Spain.

In the United States, the new Democratic President, Barack Obama, has decided not only to impose a very strong turn on his country in terms of combating the greenhouse effect and climate change, but above all to condition the rescue of the The American auto industry has drastic obligations to reduce fuel consumption - which in the United States is almost like a revolution.

In Spain, the Prime Minister, Mr. Zapatero, is perhaps “not very intelligent”, believe the President of the Republic, but he has implemented a recovery plan based on two pillars: economic support and social security of the people most affected by the crisis, and the green revival for an amount of twenty billion euros of investments. This is exactly what we are offering.

You often talk about the Grenelle, and I reminded you of your eagerness not to use it. Since the Grenelle, there has been the crisis. Should we continue to act as if nothing had happened? Do we have to keep our two feet in the same shoe, as you unfortunately do - we have just seen it - on the tax shield, which you refuse to modify?

Our conviction is that the crisis we are going through is not cyclical. It is not enough to raise as before, and to wait until everything starts again as before! This applies in the social field: our bill thus addresses the question of the distribution of income by suggesting the repeal of the tax shield and, more generally, of the tax package established by the TEPA law, of economic inefficiency and of such great social injustice. This also applies in the ecological field: can we still seriously argue that we must wait until consumption starts again in sectors as shaken as the automobile industry? Can we still maintain that we will produce the same cars tomorrow in the same quantities? Everyone knows that it is impossible.

We believe that our duty is to anticipate changes and, when this is not the case and when we are undergoing the crisis as today, to initiate useful, possible and necessary changes. We believe in the capacity for change of our country, and that of our fellow citizens, whether consumers or workers, workers or entrepreneurs. We believe that our political role is to orient the system, and even to reorient it profoundly when the situation requires it. We believe that our role is to create goals and set obligations - although I know that some colleagues consider us too proactive and believe that we set too many constraints. Yes, the major changes that we want require that we set obligations: this is the only possible way to progress. We do not believe that progress emerges spontaneously from laissez-faire, that it is enough to let the different actors do it for economic, ecological and social progress to take off one day. On the contrary, this presupposes setting ambitious targets.

This is the purpose of our proposal for an ecological transformation of the economy and its five titles which, of course, do not relate to all sectors of activity - it is neither a Grenelle bis ni government recovery plan because, as you know, parliamentary initiative is very limited. The increasingly restrictive application of article 40 of the Constitution, in particular, prevents us from presenting a certain number of proposals. We could have raised many subjects, but we have therefore chosen to focus on energy issues, and to make concrete and ambitious proposals in this area. I therefore propose that you adopt this text when it is put to the vote next Tuesday!

[...]


Source, continuation and end:
http://www.lesverts.fr/article.php3?id_article=4650
0 x
 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 98 guests