Carbon tax in France, here we go again ... Ecolomania?

[Christophe]

After sarko's bonus on investment in renewable energy, here is a new "green" fad of the government probably linked to the results of Europe Ecology last Sunday.

That did not generate me that much if there was only a percentil of sincerity in this kind of statement!

The government (re) launches the reflection on the carbon tax

The ministers of ecology, Jean-Louis Borloo, and of the economy, Christine Lagarde, officially open on Wednesday 10 June the debate on the creation of a "climate-energy contribution". They put on the table a White Paper exploring the stakes of this idea which, if it succeeds, would be a small revolution in French taxation.

This twenty-page report will be posted online and open for comments until June 24. On July 2 and 3, a consensus conference will bring together the experts and a week later, a "high-level meeting", chaired by former socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard, should draw the conclusions of the debates.

The Secretary of State for Ecology, Chantal Jouanno, assures us that this is "a first step" and that "no decision has been taken". It insists that, if it comes into being, this new tax should not lead to an increase in compulsory levies or undermine purchasing power.

The contribution climate-energy is part of the five proposals of the ecological pact of Nicolas Hulot that Nicolas Sarkozy had committed to put under study at the end of the Grenelle of the environment, in October 2007. By fixing a price to pay for each ton of CO2 emitted, this tax is considered by ecologists as the essential tool to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

"This carbon tax would have the particularity of growing steadily each year until the objective of dividing emissions by four is reached. It would apply to everyone, administrations, local authorities, agriculture, fishing, industry , services, households ", explained the pact.

The White Paper does not go that far. It raises above all questions, but it shares this observation: the European market of quotas of CO2 which, through a system of allowances, plans the fall of the emissions of the most polluting industries (iron and steel, cement, glass, refining, paper ...) only sets 40% of the problem. All that comes from road transport, agriculture, heating ... does not include the right price of environmental damage caused by the increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

The report notes, for example, that the tax on heating oil amounts to 21 euros per tonne of CO2 in France, for 56 euros on average in Europe and 131 euros in Sweden, a country often cited as an example.

Suite and source: http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article ... 23448.html

And how Mister the pipolitics, how will you tax the cleanest of CO2? The one that was not emitted via energy savings?

[Christophe]

Go stop the jokes.

CO2 is nevertheless already taxed ... "thanks" fuel taxes from oil (VAT included)

Thus, the road diesel currently sold to 1 € / L is taxed at 60 cts / L approximately.

He emits 2.6 kg of CO2 by L.

This means that there is already a carbon tax of 1000 / 2.6 * 0.6 = 231 euros per tonne of CO2 emitted by diesel fuel!

What is funny is that by doing the same calculation on the Domestic Fuel is 110-20 euros ... then overtax 21 € frankly ...

After we can still tax the tax ... it's not new.

On the other hand, it really would be necessary that Jouanno, the magician, explains to us how she wants to put a new tax without increasing the levies !!

It is a vast pipotery, escrological, on the part of the most liar and deceitful government that France has had since ... a long time ... maybe that of Petain ...

The "kytoto" tax would be much more effective but prohibited by free trade ... Only the bitter ones can afford to heavily tax import products without "retaliation".

This is the law of the strongest ...

[Christophe]

Another story:

The consumer association UFC-Que Choisir was "skeptical" Wednesday as to the effectiveness of the carbon tax project, presented by the government, asking that the "unfair increase in spending" it entails for the consumer is compensated.

"The UFC-Que Choisir underlines its skepticism as to the environmental effectiveness of this measure, its concern about its immediate impact on the purchasing power" of consumers who, "with the current lack of alternatives, are struggling to reduce their energy use, "she said in a statement.

Indeed, according to the association, while the price of fuel increased by 66% between 1995 and 2006, that is to say nearly 5% per year, "the fuel consumption of individuals, far from decreasing, increased by 7,6 , XNUMX% over the period ", explains the association.

For heating based on gas and domestic fuel oil, "the weakness of price elasticity is even more significant", she emphasizes.

In this context, the introduction of a new tax will lead above all to an unfair increase in spending "for consumers, protests the UFC-Que Choisir.

Suite and source: http://www.romandie.com/infos/afp/displ ... h1vxnj.asp

[Christophe]

The rise in taxes is inevitable, by Didier Migaud

[Christophe]

Ecolomania, 2nd! Action!

Posted on 11 / 06 / 2009 08: 17 | Jean-Pierre Bédéi
A sudden ecolomania

What a throttle! It is enough that the ecologists turn a big success to the Europeans so that suddenly the environmental concern returns in force. That the Greens are parading is legitimate. Whether they want to pluck the socialist poultry very badly, we have no trouble imagining it. Already at the beginning of the 90 years, they caressed this dream when the left ran towards one of the most spectacular defeats in 1993's legislative elections. They had not achieved their ends, victims mostly of themselves ... But the temptation was already strong.

Today the Greens are not alone in celebrating the success of ecology. The right claims it too. Since Monday, the government and the UMP have continued to claim the Grenelle Environment. Nicolas Sarkozy is the first environmentalist in France. Two days after the Europeans, he visited the National Institute of Solar Energy in Savoie. While this trip was planned for a long time, but it was timely for the President to give the green eyes to the environmentalists: "Where we spend one euro for nuclear, we will spend one euro for renewable energy. " And yesterday in front of UMP senators, Sarkozy pointed out we had not waited for the Greens to know that the environment is important ". (Christophe's note, yes in dealing with sectarian ecologistsFrançois Fillon believes that the performance of Cohn-Bendit and his friends "confirms the growing importance of the environmental issue". Finally Cope declares that "the UMP is a party that has taken the dimension of ecology arm-in-the-body."

Even Bernard Accoyer, the president of the National Assembly, gets involved. He too is surfing the green wave. He announced that Yann Arthus-Bertrand's "Home" movie would be screened at the Palais-Bourbon next Tuesday for MPs and guests. "The environmental priority, it is there at the level of the executive and the Parliament, all tendencies," he explained. Finally, yesterday the government relaunched the debate on the idea of carbon tax "On the polluting energy content of our consumptions, carried in 2007 by Nicolas Hulot. A "conference of experts" will be organized in July to study the feasibility of this project that aims to change behavior by encouraging households and businesses to consume less energy such as oil, gas and coal. But this measure already worries "UFC-Que Choisir" who has expressed skepticism about the environmental effectiveness of this measure, fearing "its immediate impact on purchasing power".

On the left also ecology could very quickly become a priority. In the "refoundation" of the PS that advocates Aubry, it is a safe bet that the environment will have a place of choice so that this niche is not abandoned to the Greens. Already Socialist Didier Migaud, chairman of the Finance Committee in the Assembly, warned that "no tax reform will be complete if it does not integrate the climate issue. On the right as on the left, the green is put, could we say to parody the title of a film. As if the political chessboard was caught by a sudden ecolomania ...

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2009/06 ... mania.html

[Christophe]

Ecolomania, 3ieme! Aaaaaction !! (really on video this time)

It's simple, today everyone is green. Or more precisely, everyone wants the voices of the Greens. But we know the good old principle: voters will always prefer the original to the copy. So, is the new political treatment of ecology favorable only to ecologist parties? "Citizens want a serious environmental policy and they prefer to entrust it to parties that are convinced rather than to people who have until now rather done the opposite," said Yves Contassot, adviser Green Paris. But Patrick Ollier, MP UMP Hauts-de-Seine, "ecology is a cross-cutting problem, it's not a party that can talk about ecology, it's absurd"

2 videos here: http://www.streetreporters.net/views/2541-tous-colos

I love the conclusion of the 1e part (on political ecology) by Yves COTTASSO: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9jwwt ... osavi_news

2Ith part on nuclear power: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9jwx2 ... reavi_news

[Remundo]

There are nozzles in Europe and even more in France.

The US, Russia and China will probably never apply coercive taxes on oil, gas and coal.

If it is estimated that the French economy already on its knees can afford to tax the CO2 and hamper its meager development, we can go immediately to the ball of hypochrites, then that of the foolish.

Christophe is right to say that carbon is already heavily taxed in France, especially since no clean technology is produced: electric and hybrid almost nonexistent, massive transport by diesel trucks ...

The only recent measure to diversify the electricity mix is ​​the photovoltaic support, which is debating, but I find globally a good measure.

We should do the same on solar thermodynamics, wood, biomass ... Well insulate new homes and limit damage in the old.

And that requires the real solution - utopian - would be that the lobbies loosen their grip. In France, we have 3 on energy: the nuclear, the tankers and the State.

They have been getting along well for a long time.

[Pear Belle Helene]

It insists that, if it comes into being, this new tax should not lead to an increase in compulsory levies or undermine purchasing power.

That's it, yes, and the marmot puts chocolate in the paper .... ...... or take me for a ham as my daughter says

[Did67]

1) We can tax carbon fossil and do not increase the average tax burden: it is enough to lower the taxation of products that are not rich in carbon.

Ex: we increase the tax on gas and oil by x%, this generates a tax increase of x billion; VAT is lowered on the products to 5,5% (in principle of first necessity) so lowered this VAT there of the same x billions. Or we define the products: flour, pasta, sugar, medicines, fruits, etc.

And so the big rollers in Mood and Porch pay the flour or the bread of the modest people ... I do not understand that you do not understand that!

Another solution, we reduce the income taxes of people who pay less than z thousand € by sending them a check such as it costs x billion to the State ... If they drive in a car, they do not win anything in the end . If they take the bike, it's all good for them (and they pay for an LCD TV) ...

I find you "limited" in your thoughts when it comes to "carbon tax". Attention, if I were Bayrou, I would accuse you, band of Cohn Bendits of my two that you are, of "roll" for the oil lobby with your arguments. Which is objectively true. Reread what you just wrote... Hat!

2) This would immediately and indirectly favor energies not based on fossil carbon (we always forget the word "fossil"), therefore solar, wood, pellets, etc ... which would not be taxed and which would become more and more profitable.

I'll be glad that the fuel is 1 €!

What I fear most is that lobbies quickly empty this initiative of sound meaning and get ridiculous tax rates. It is against this that we must fight, not against the carbon tax (fossil - I remember it)! Thanks, do not give them arguments, they are powerful enough without you!

Even coming from the right (she had only to do it, the left, shit!), Even created by pure opportunism (so much the better if he got it like that, Dany and his gang) and there is no doubt, even "very imperfect", I am FOR! As long as it's high enough to make an impact (I say that, and yet I need a car because I live in a secluded corner)! Things must finally move, in France, shit !!! Even though I left some feathers ...

[Christophe]

Hihihihihi take me for a ham! I did not know that one ...

Did67, I am FOR taxes on energy, you know that very well because they allow us to pay "more attention" to consumption!

But these taxes must serve the people and not enslave !!
That is to say contribute to the development of solutions!

There you will tell me that I am 1 little paradoxical compared to my position on the PV and you will be right but I still prefer a tax (or contribution or how you want) to finance the PV than to pay the debt!

So if it's one more tax to pay the bankster and the debt under pretext of false ecological pretext and do not change anything in the bottom of the society then there I say NO NO NO! And you'd better say uter ...

Do not take us for hams anyway!