Free to go to the deletion as incandescent bulbs

To reduce our emissions of greenhouse, deep and rapid behavioural changes in all of us are necessary. It is in this perspective that the Government is currently considering the establishment of an environmental taxation and asked a group of experts led by Michel Rocard to make proposals.

In his report was released, the Group opted for two important positions. On the one hand, it suggests tax gas emissions greenhouse by a price signal and by restricting the volumes. On the other hand, for the sake of simplicity, the choice was made to use a perimeter of taxation limited to the only fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal).

As envisaged, the Rocard tax might not have the impact on the behaviour of our fellow citizens. The reading of the Rocard report is itself instructive. The report stresses that people should be the most affected by this tax are the inhabitants of rural areas, who use their individual vehicles, households whose homes use polluting heating equipment and the more modest-income households. These criteria are highly correlated, housing heated fuel oil being most numerous in rural areas and low-income households are more frequently with heating old boilers.

This socio-demographic analysis makes the behavioural evolution expected uncertain. More transmitters households will have to invest in the new less emitting equipment (vehicles, boiler, insulation...). Financially can afford, even taking into account the incentives (Eco - PTZ, tax credit) tools Targeted compensation are certainly possible, but, in addition to the difficulties in determining, they can generate as many distortions that provide solutions. The Rocard report therefore asks itself the question of the relevance of its proposals.

An alternative would be that each product is taxed according to its carbon content. But, absence of sophisticated carbon accounting, it is too complex. Why, then, do not consider extending malus system, as also Jean-Louis Borloo had contemplated it originally It could be put in place when a new purchase on the emitting CO2 consumer products. As malus would be larger that the tax Rocard while being easier to implement than a generalized carbon tax.

The first use of the system of malus seem conclusive. In the automotive sector, malus directly related to the purchase of a polluting vehicle allowed to evolve the behaviour of consumers but also producers. Bonus, introduced in parallel with the malus, in the case of vehicles is, him, necessary Not really: it creates windfall effects and proves costly for public finances. The number of applications of malus can multiply: one example of the preference for the mugs in companies having introduced in their beverage distributors a malus of five euro cents, if a plastic cup.

To be socially acceptable, malus may only be substitutable products at a reasonable cost (bags/plastic bags, etc.), which is often the case. In addition, the malus cannot be accused of being protectionist, as the WTO acknowledged recently, since it applies without distinction to all products regardless of their place of production. For industrial, he introduced visibility, especially if it is accompanied in parallel by progressively binding regulations, technical standards and standards-based policies. Free to go to the deletion, as incandescent bulbs. There is no doubt that this device would however more equitable, in the same spirit, it is introduced into our European partners.

An exemplary application would be electricity, although consumer is. The current rates do not provide consumers the signals necessary to optimize their behavior, both from an economic point of view that ecological. A malus could be introduced to the peaking hours, during which power plants, the more card, work actively, particularly in winter. This would give everyone a clear reading of the environmental impact of its electricity consumption, and it would be conducive to change habits, reducing its consumption of electricity or, especially, by moving its uses (washing machines, refill, etc.).

The diversity of behaviour and inequalities of financial resources between citizens is essential to implement a device socially fair and financially sustainable. It must convey the right signals to industry and consumers, and giving a premium to the most innovative companies and the more responsible behaviour. The Rocard report has had the merit of open debate. Let us continue.