Episode #2 Citizens’ Convention on Climate – BONUS: my opinion about the president’s wild cards on the 149 proposed measures to fight against climate change

In the episode #2 on the Citizens’ Convention on Climate, I have tried not to give my opinion when explaining President Macron’s “wild cards”. However, I believe that sharing it could launch a discussion so one can think about it together. Maybe I will change my mind? Maybe you will change yours? Maybe we go a third way to find a common opinion?

I don’t agree to Macron’s first wild card

As the President presented it, I can understand that 4% (new) tax on dividends is scary for businesses which also have shareholders but are not huge, wealthy, growing enterprises and/or on the stock market. But take the proposed action as a whole: it is only for businesses with more than EUR 10 millions annual dividends. 4% less, they still would have EUR 9,6 millions to distribute to their shareholders – I think this is a reasonable and fair effort given the climate and biodiversity emergencies. Also just to point out that those enterprises are probably not the most eco-friendly ones, so arguing they would finance the ecological transition on their own: not sure. Paying taxes would be the most easiest way of fighting/adapting against climate change – I love the idea.

I’m OK-ish with Macron’s second wild card

Despite the fact that this measure would reduce emissions from road transport by around 20% and hypothetically encourage a shift to rail transportation, I am still OK with the President not supporting that measure. Because it is realistic to say that this can be the one idea that scares people to adhere to the project as a whole. Note that this measure (SD-A3.1.) is the one with the least consensus among the 150, with only 59.7% in favour, while almost all the other proposed actions were adopted by more than 80%.

I don’t know about wild card number 3

President Macron’s argument makes sense for the French republican ideology. I guess it could be the subject of an essay for students in political philosophy or constitutional law. This is not my case, so here are the questions I have regarding the proposed amendment to the preamble of the Constitution and the refusal formulated by Emmanuel Macron:

• Isn’t it precisely the philosophy of the Enlightenment, to a certain extent, that leads to the destruction of nature? Indeed, it seems to me that the Enlightenment separates humankind from nature, wishes to rationalize it, control it, exploit it.
• If we consider that humans are part of nature, then why would giving a right to nature automatically contradict the values of the Republic and more particularly public liberties and democratic rules?
• And moreover, why does he consider that environmental values could jeopardize the rights, freedoms and principles of the Republic?
• Would adding a right to nature not modernize our Republic, make it do a small exercise of humility: because, can the Republic exist in a society that destroys what keeps it alive?

Also my thoughts on the proposed measures of which the scope have been reduced:

• Decreasing from 4 hours to 2 hours 30 the limit to organize the end of air traffic on domestic flights. The argument put forward by the President is as follows: gradually cancelling internal flights that can be carried out in 4 hours or less via other means of transport would risk re-enclosing regions. However, this is clearly to the detriment of the maintenance or creation of railway lines. So, does an airport in a territory considered to be landlocked really make a difference? If you are not French, not sure you will know what example I am talking about about: does the Montlucon-Guéret airport really make Creuse more economically attractive? Not so sure about that.
• The issue of renegotiating the CETA… Just to note that there is a difference between incorporating the objectives of the Paris Agreement (proposal SN4.1.1) into the CETA, and checking, informally, that the consequences of the CETA’s implementation are not contrary to the Paris Agreement.
• The notion of ecocide: taking a detour to international law seems to me to be a strategy of neither yes nor no, because I am not sure that it is a sufficient lever for action. Even if it were, it’s getting rid of the issue raised. As far as French criminal law is concerned, he could have named that as a fourth wild card, since he said that the proposal needs to be reworked: will it retain its essence?