by Jerome a Paris
Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 12:11:48 PM EST
I used to have some respect for Eric Le Boucher, the economics editorial writer of Le Monde, as he at least has some understanding of economics, something annoyingly rare in France, but the way he has been parrotting the worst neolib talking points in recent times is getting increasingly annoying. Today, à la Crichton or à la Lomborg, he is accusing Greens of being wrong to call for action on Global Climate Change - for all
the usual stupid reasons:
| Le réchauffement de la planète est devenu un problème trop sérieux pour être laissé aux écologistes. La Grande-Bretagne l'a compris. (...) La France est restée, elle, dans le politicard et l'émotionnel. | | Global Warming has become too important an issue to be left in the hands of the Greens. Britain understand this. (...) France is stuck in petty politicking and emotional wankery. |
Apart from the petty sniping at France (yet another demonstration, in my view, that France's biggest problem is that its elites do not believe in themselves anymore), jump in for more of the same inconsistent against doing anything.
The immediate cause of Mr Le Boucher's outrage is the mediatic impact of Nicolas Hulot, the former presenter of a TV show on nature, who is arguing for a
programme (Le Monde summary, behind sub. wall, translated below) to cut carbon emissions and has been courted in recent days by politicians on both the left and the right.
| Economie. Une logique de la durabilité ; concevoir les produits pour qu'ils durent et soient réparables.
Energie. Organiser la baisse de la consommation afin de diviser par quatre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'ici à 2050.
Agriculture. Produire autrement, en conciliant production agricole ; respect de l'environnement, travail paysan et produits de qualité.
Territoire. Contenir l'extension périurbaine et relocaliser les activités humaines, en cessant de multiplier les infrastructures et d'"artificialiser" les surfaces.
Transports. Sortir du tout routier, en développant les transports en commun et le vélo.
Fiscalité. Etablir le véritable prix des services rendus par la nature en supprimant les subventions défavorables à l'environnement.
Biodiversité. Faire entrer la nature dans l'aménagement du territoire, en créant un réseau écologique national.
Santé. Prévenir avant de guérir, en évaluant le poids de l'environnement dans les causes de maladies.
Recherche. Faire de l'environnement un moteur de l'innovation.
Politique internationale. Prendre l'initiative, en promouvant une autorité mondiale de l'environnement. | | Economy. Bring about a logic of durability: build things so that they last and can be easily repaired.
Energy. Organise a decrease in consumption so as the divide GHG emissions by 4 by 2050.
Agriculture. Change production modes, to take into account the environment, paysan labor and quality of the products.
Land management. Limit suburban expansion and relocalize human activity by stopping the needless extension of infrastructure and the minaralisation of surfaces.
Transports. Move away from the dominance of road transport by developing public transport and biking.
Tax policy. Bring about the true price of the services provided by the environment by eliminating subsidies that damage the environment.
Biodiversity. Bring environmental concerns into zoning plans, by creating a national environmental authority.
Health. Focus on preventation rather than cure; analyse the impact of environmental damage in the cause of disease.
R&D. Use environmental concerns as an engine for innovation.
International Policy. Take the lead, by promoting the creation of a world environmental authority. |
| "Cinq propositions concrètes"
1. – Un vice premier ministre chargé du développement durable.
2. – Instaurer une taxe carbone en croissance régulière.
3. – Réorienter les subventions agricoles vers une agriculture de qualité.
4. – Systématiser les procédures de démocratie participative.
5. – Mettre en place une grande politique d'éducation et de sensibilisation. | | Five proposals:
1. – A vice Prime Minister in charge of sustainable develoment
2. – A regularly increasing carbon tax
3. – A transfer of agricultural subsidies towards quality farming.
4. – A big development of participatory democracy prodecures
5. – A large education campaign. |
Nothing earth-shattering there, but it has had the merit, just like the Stern report, to bring the environment to the fore of the political debate. And that cannot be tolerated.
| la France est responsable de 1,5 % des émissions mondiales de CO2 : 368 millions de tonnes sur 24 milliards. Les Français auraient beau élire un vice-président tout vert comme le souhaite M. Hulot, rouler à vélo et couper le courant, cela ne changerait strictement rien au ciel.
Sans doute, répondent les écolos. Mais "il faut bien montrer l'exemple" ! Nous voilà au coeur de leur stratégie : avoir mauvaise conscience, se serrer la ceinture, entrer volontairement dans " la culture de la modération". Au besoin, il faut contraindre les récalcitrants par la force (à Paris, par exemple) pour sauver la planète. | | France causes only 1.5% of global carbon emissions. Even if it elected a nicely green President like Mr Hulot, started riding bikes, and cutting off power, it would change nothing to the climate.
Of course, reply the Greens, but "we have to show the way". That's the core of their strategy: give us a bad conscience, restrict oneself, enter the "culture of moderation". And, if necessary (like in Paris) constrain the unwilling by force to save the planet. |
The usual argument that acting alone is not enough, as if that were an argument not to act. Of course we need to act globally, but that includes us, and if we're not convinced ourselves to do anything, how will we convince others?
And of course the usual Reaganesque argument that the environmentally minded really want us to go back to live like cavemen.
| Cette salade verte, arrosée par Dieu et Malthus, idéologisée, séduit en France. L'écologie y est devenue la dernière manière de lutter contre le capitalisme. Mais elle n'a aucune chance de convaincre ailleurs. (...) Les Etats-Unis n'ont pas ratifié le protocole, le Canada vient de s'en retirer. Aucun pays émergent n'est concerné alors que la Chine deviendra la plus grosse "pollueuse" dans dix ans. En Europe, seules la Grande-Bretagne et la Suède respectent leur ordre de marche. La France à peine. | | That green propaganda, spiced with God and Malthus, works in France. Ecology has become the latest way to fight capitalism. But it stands no chance of working elsewhere. (...) The USA did not ratify Kyoto. No emerging country is on board, even as China will become the biggest polluter in 10 years. In Europe, only the UK and Sweden fulfill their obligations. France barely does. |
Worse, the enviros really are
communists. The
red menace under the green... And that's just a French disease, of course. And the French, which "barely" fulfill their obligations (strange how that's different from actually fulfilling these obligations. But doing things as well as in the UK or Sweden? That would be intolerable to a professional France-basher like Le Boucher).
And again, we bump up against the US and China, the two great excuses to do nothing. Where's Al Gore form, again?
Thus the conclusion:
| Comment convaincre les réticents, et d'abord les Etats-Unis et la Chine ? Sûrement pas en leur proposant la "modération", et encore moins de changer le capitalisme. (...) Il faut bien sûr faire prendre conscience (comme les écolos ou Al Gore), taxer le CO2 (comme M. Hulot, mais à l'échelle mondiale), mais à la condition de décupler les efforts de recherche et de développement sur les énergies propres. Pas moins de croissance, mais plus de science. Ajoutons : plus de nucléaire. | | How do we convince those opposed, starting with China and the USA. Certainly not by proposing "moderation", or by changing capitalism. (...) Of course one needs to create awareness (like the Greens or Al Gore), and tax carbon (like Mr Hulot proposes, but on a worldwide basis), but only if we increase R&D spending on clean energy sources. Not less growth, but more science. And, let's add, more nuclear |
So, to sum up: we have to agitate for awareness on the issue, propose carbon taxes, focus on renewable energy, but such proposals should not come from people that are green, because they are bad. Do I get this right?
Hmm. Actually, we end up again with the issue of growth. The real irreconciliable difference between the real enviros and those desired by the short-sighted capitalists and their spokeslackeys like Le Boucher is that the first group is willing to question the concept of growth (or simply to acknowledge that it is bumping against very real, and very hard, limits) whereas the second refuses to consider that at all. Because of course it would put limits on its unrestrained dash for accumulation and concentration of wealth.
Underlying this, of course, is the now dominant definition of capitalism whereby any restriction to corporations is unacceptable (and immediately labelled communist and thus evil). Externalities cannot be internalised unless the Chinese and Americans do it, and as the Americans are "real" capitalists and don't do it, and the Chinese are, hmm, presumably real capitalists as well, and don't do it either, we should not do it. Beyond the simplistic views on what's happening in the USA (lol), this is really a cowardly and weasely way out of one's responsibilities.
Taking the leadership here will bring us benefits, even if the Chinese don't follow us. But nah, that's communist.
