Elections in France: two pathways for the climate
The transition to a low-carbon France is not an easy one. It requires households to get involved and invest in the short term. This can fuel a rejection of the policies implementing the transition. Faced with this difficulty, should we turn back or look for a way forward that can gain a broader support? In Benoît Leguet’s view, this is what is at stake in the campaign for the elections in France. Some political parties are putting forward proposals to help the middle and working classes make the transition. Others are tempted, whether they admit it or not, to reject any policy remotely associated with a low-carbon future. Let’s be clear from the outset: the second path is a dead end, which the political parties should not embark upon.
We have entered the challenging part of the climate transition. To decarbonise France’s economy and adapt it to a rapidly changing climate, businesses and households will have to equip themselves with electric vehicles, which are more expensive to invest in; homeowners will have to renovate their homes or buildings, even when this work does not appear strictly necessary; farmers and the wider agri-food sector will have to change their ways of working… In the long term, these changes are unlikely to lead to any loss of comfort or income. But the transition does mean changing our habits, our consumption choices and our modes of transport. The consequences are well known: reduced purchasing power, inability to finance the necessary investments, fear of losing one’s job, etc.
These implications of climate action are not enough to explain the result of the European elections. Still, they can give rise to a sense of disconnection between those who define public policies and those who experience the consequences “in real life”. This can generate a discourse of rejection of the incentives and standards painstakingly built up over the past few years. We need to listen.
Learning the lessons of the French Yellow vests protests
Two reactions, two possible pathways are emerging for decision-makers, political parties, and ultimately for voters. The only desirable path is for us to accept the challenges, and seek to reconcile ‘the end of the world and the end of the month’. The other way is to see the economy and the climate as two irreconcilable objectives, and to think of choosing one – the economy – over the other. To put it another way, to bury one’s head in the sand.
The political programmes of Macron’s Ensemble and the left-wing Nouveau Front populaire, for example, include major measures to support the renovation of housing, aimed at low-income households in particular. These projects are in line with the public tools created in recent years, such as Ma Prime Renov’ to refurbish housing and the social leasing for electric vehicles.
The difference lies in the stated ambition and the amount of public money required – the Nouveau Front populaire claims zero out-of-pocket expenses for low-income households, while Ensemble remains more vague – and therefore, of course, also vague about the overall balance of public accounts. Ensemble does not wish to increase taxation, but is faced with the question of where to find the money to provide more support – and to what extent; the Nouveau Front populaire is banking on significant additional tax levies but is facing criticism over the budgetary balance of its project. So there are some very significant differences, but both blocks try to come up with solutions.
The political impasse: hiding one’s head in the sand
The second possible option is to reject policies that are more or less closely associated with the climate or ecology, in a more or less assertive way. For example, by calling into question electric vehicles; the obligation to renovate buildings; the deployment of renewable energies – biogas, heat, electricity – and betting on the rapid availability of new nuclear power; directly subsidising the consumption of fossil fuels by lowering VAT on petroleum products…
Rejecting climate policies now seems to be the path chosen by the Rassemblement national. This is obviously a problem for the climate. It’s also a dead end.
It’s a dead end for France’s security of energy supply: deploying low-carbon mobility, renewable energies and renovating housing is indeed essential to protect us from the vagaries of fossil fuel prices; but it’s also necessary to ensure the energy supply-demand balance, or in other words, to protect France from energy shortages, even if we bet on the rapid arrival of new nuclear power.
A dead end for France’s and Europe’s industrial competitiveness, as Europe cannot leave the race for green technologies to the United States and China, which would be disastrous in terms of jobs. A dead end for our agricultural sovereignty, as our agriculture is now dependent on fossil fuels both for energy and for fertilisers.
But more fundamentally, rejecting climate policies is problematic for the French people, particularly the most disadvantaged, on two counts.
Firstly, protecting purchasing power. Transition is essential if France is to break its dependence on fossil fuels and protect itself from repeated energy crises. The success of social leasing of electric vehicules is a clear demonstration of this, with many low-income households having decided to take the plunge into electric mobility in the wake of soaring petrol prices.
Secondly, protecting people from climate risks. Accepting that the climate is changing, and that France needs to incorporate this evidence into its policies and public investment choices now – even if it sometimes costs more in the short term – means protecting the French agriculture, transport infrastructure, buildings, healthcare system and ultimately the French people from tomorrow’s and today’s climatic events.
Debating the ways and means of transition
According to surveys, the French people – even voters for the Rassemblement national, and even the most disadvantaged – do not question the aims of climate policies. What they do want, however, is to be more closely considered and involved in defining the public policies implemented to achieve the objectives. All the more so because these policies affect them directly. It is therefore a debate on the means, not the end, that is expected. A debate on the sharing of the effort and the fairest policies for making the necessary transition.
