Therefore the French carbon tax takes another meaning

While the manifestations of climate change risks exceed the most pessimistic forecasts, it is necessary to change our patterns of production and consumption. In an open market economy, the most effective is to change the relative prices of the products, by making more expensive ones the greenhouse gas content is the most important. Products whose relative price drop will be further requested, substitutions will operate in their favour. If the idea is simple, its practical implementation has a series of difficulties. Carbon tax project illustrates the problems that arise, as shown by current debates following the delivery of the Rocard report.

A first difficulty, if the France engages in this way, is what is coyly called a problem of social acceptability, to try to justify this measure with the population. If environmental issues relate more in addition to world, they are not at the forefront of the concerns of the vast majority, more concerned about unemployment, power purchase or the future of pensions. Is that, for the moment, global warming is still dreadful effects and that an additional fee on behalf of a still poorly perceived threat may be misunderstood. And this even more than the two main areas where this tax applies, transport and heating, more strongly would penalise the more modest households. Therefore, efforts will be immediate and distant and uncertain benefits. Businesses that would be subjected, they anticipate a loss of competitiveness leading to an increase in unemployment, which will not immediately offset by creations of jobs in the non-taxed sectors.

The second major difficulty is the nature of climate change, for the entire planet. Climate as a public good, is not only the behaviour of the French to be change, but to billions of people. It is in Copenhagen late 2009 that the discussion will continue at the international level and that is that real solutions can be taken, involving a high level of cooperation between States to which they have not used us for the moment, preferring the declarations of commitment for 2050 to concrete actions in the short term. Therefore, the French carbon tax takes another meaning. It is more greatly reduced our emissions, but to give a signal of the commitment of the France on this track. At the time, the social acceptability becomes less problematic, since it is not useful to tax too strong but fair to indicate political will. There is an incentive for the Government to set a low tax which will likely not enough to change behaviour and therefore did not initiate a truly new development path. The current European carbon market provides us a "good" example: it does imply that about a third of French of greenhouse gases and emissions the over-allocation of emission allowances is such that the energy sobriety incentives are almost non-existent.

However, if "our way of life is not negotiable", as spelled out it George Bush father in 1992, largely due to a fear of live less well with certainty today, without guarantee of live better tomorrow. It is feared that words alone do not satisfy the populations, and that only the successful experience of another mode of life can get them to accept the changes. The "alternative technician" to maintain our consumption levels while preserving the natural mechanisms of regulation of the biosphere through technological progress is for the less hypothetical. It is therefore all the more important to start fast and strong enough in establishing a significant tax, not on only fossil fuels, but on the whole of the greenhouse gas emissions so that the changes are not invisible. But then is the problem of social acceptability, this time in the world. Success will be the appointment if the rapid reduction of inequalities becomes visible and credible, particularly if rich countries really willing to operate transfers of technology that would allow developing countries to not refuse any action on the ground that it too stifle their current growth. What is surprising is that it still organizes "conferences of experts", while solutions are known for a long time: most of these issues were already addressed in a report of the Commissioner-General of the plan ("the economy to ecology"), in 1993! The "experts" have done their job. The time is now to the political choices.