President Sarkozy - Press Conference

THE PRESIDENT – (…) We’ve got an accord. Right up to the last moment, the French delegation and I were pondering the right course of action. I’m going to report to you as briefly as possible on the problems, what was adopted and what was committed. (…)

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZATION

THE PRESIDENT – (…) Europe will propose the creation of a European Environment Organization which will have two responsibilities: monitoring each country’s environmental commitments and the honouring of the financial commitments vis-à-vis the poorest countries. Why at European level? Because we didn’t get it at global level. But Europe is determined to lead the way and this Organization will, of course, be called on to accept the candidature of every country wishing to join in its work. (…)

AQUILA G8/MEF/COPENHAGEN/WEO

Q. – I’d like to know how the commitments China, India and the United States made in Aquila and at the Major Economies Forum differ from what they’ve done here. I can’t see how they do, since they had already recognized the 2º and there’s nothing binding. What is there that’s new?

THE PRESIDENT – To my knowledge, there was no commitment in Aquila. But if you want something else: there was no €100 billion in Aquila, so no commitment could have been made – I mean the €100 billion [for the poor countries] as from 2020. The €30 billion over the first three years wasn’t on the table in Aquila. The commitment to put the emissions reduction targets in the annex wasn’t there at all in Aquila. And there was no commitment, in writing, to meet the objective of limiting the temperature rise to 2º in Aquila either. And then there’s innovative financing: when Bernard Kouchner and I were talking about the possibility of taxing financial transactions, do you remember what people said? There was nothing about that at all. 20% for the forests, to combat deforestation; everyone can clearly see that the best way to fight emissions is to combat deforestation, there was nothing about that in Aquila. Nor about the 40% for Africa. As you know, we were still working on the Millennium Development Goals, with participants voicing scepticism on the issue.

So if you want to ask me what’s missing, it’s clearer to get straight to the point. To my mind, two things are missing: the 50% target in 2050, which we’d have preferred to see kept. It wasn’t possible, from this point of view it’s a disappointment, even though we’re keeping the 80% target. Am I making myself clear here?

And the second disappointment is that there’s no World Environment Organization, even though we took advantage of the meeting to push for the European Environment Organization which is destined to become a world organization. Those are the two points on which we didn’t get satisfaction. (…)

FRANCE/EUROPE/COPENHAGEN ACCORD

Q. – You began the press conference by telling us: “right up to the last moment, I myself, the French delegation were pondering the right course of action”. Did you really contemplate not signing this accord, rejecting it? And, secondly, why do you think that this accord, which doesn’t fully satisfy you, will be more effective than the huge commotion which the European Union would have caused by not signing it?

THE PRESIDENT – So long as we weren’t certain that every country was committing itself on paper to specific emissions reduction targets, we couldn’t sign the accord. We could agree to giving up the 50% cut provided we had the 2º, plus the breakdown of the countries’ reductions. This was precisely the point at issue. Am I making myself understood? The 2º is the general target, with the 50% cut the specific objective required to limit the temperature increase to 2º. We can agree to giving up the 50% emissions reduction in 2050 if we’ve got every country’s goals for immediately cutting emissions; otherwise it isn’t possible – I hope my explanations aren’t too obscure – you see, we can swap a collective target of a 50% cut in 2050 for targets individually allocated, country by country, immediately; by “immediately” I mean between 2010-2015. So long as we weren’t sure of getting that, we couldn’t agree.

Secondly, so long as there was no agreement on innovative financing, I tell you, I wouldn’t have committed France. The ministers, Jean-Louis [Borloo] and I talked about this involving pretty substantial sums, even though it’s the whole international community which is committing itself to it. So the deadlock on these points was lifted only at the last moment, since the Chinese Prime Minister was no longer even at the conference centre.

Q. – And if Europe hadn’t signed?

THE PRESIDENT – Had Europe not signed, we would have found ourselves in the paradoxical situation of it being easier to explain that we wanted all or nothing, but the consequence of refusing to sign was that it would have allowed China and India to exempt themselves from any form of limitation. It might seem paradoxical to take the view that Copenhagen isn’t ambitious enough to constrain Chine and India, but with no Copenhagen accord, there’s nothing. (…)

POLITICAL/LEGALLY-BINDING ACCORD

Q. – This accord seems to be a political rather than legally-binding one since it didn’t prove possible to make a legal one. The countries are going to be left the task of translating the text and this accord into their legislative systems. When is there going to be an international legal text? In Mexico?

THE PRESIDENT – First of all, there was never a question of producing a legally- binding text in Copenhagen, because I don’t know how we’d have been able to prepare a treaty. I told Mr Ban Ki-moon back in September in New York: “Don’t start working on a document several hundred pages long, we’d never be able to get through it”. So it’s always been agreed that Copenhagen was a political accord. For the rest, we, Europe and the United States, are clearly calling for this political document to be transformed into a treaty. This is why France is supporting Germany’s organization of an intermediate summit in Bonn: this is why we have ensured that the terms of reference given to President Calderon for Mexico are as broad as possible; and this is why a lot of us will be asking in Mexico for the Copenhagen political accord to be transformed into a treaty. This is of course encountering opposition – today as I speak – from China and India. (…)

CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION

Q. - (…) You mentioned earlier some organizational problems at the conference, the Danish presidency has very probably, perhaps, something to do with the question you were pondering, but, despite everything, aren’t you drawing deeper lessons for the actual climate negotiating process? There’s something I’m wondering about: basically haven’t we got a sort of circular process: we give negotiators a brief, for example two years ago in Bali, then they crunch the data for two years and, at the end of the two years, the political leaders, you President Sarkozy, the other heads of State, arrive and in a way sanction a failure, the failure of the negotiators and the brief given to them at the outset.

THE PRESIDENT – (…) This obviously poses, you’re absolutely right, the problem of the way the international community is organized. Let’s not attribute more responsibility to the Danish presidency than it deserves. The Danish Prime Minister did everything he could, he did it pretty well in fact, but let’s say that the UN decision-making process…We’ve reached the limits of a system which I’ve consistently criticized – pardon, at any rate since the day I was elected. The role that a number of us have played wasn’t ours to play. We didn’t play it for pleasure, but because things weren’t moving forward. I have a high regard for Mr Ban Ki-moon; I support him; he’s a man who really deserves respect and consideration, but clearly the limitations of the UN process, which consists in never holding votes, in deciding by consensus and remaining the organization it was in the twentieth century, have become evident – yes, and your question is wholly pertinent – it consists in having the right to make progress on every issue only if everyone agrees. Can you imagine this with 192 countries? It’s a process which today is on its last legs.

Secondly, it’s a process which doesn’t give the major emerging countries their rightful place. Think about it: when India has to be asked to play her full part in protecting the planet, India who has hundreds of millions of inhabitants bordering on the most worrying poverty, it’s absolutely normal for Prime Minister Singh to say: “listen, we emit very little carbon, but we’ve got a lot of poverty, we’re afraid you will prevent us from developing”. If India were a member of the Security Council, it would be far easier to get her to shoulder a greater proportion of her responsibilities. Seeing a system like this makes it blindingly obvious.

So the difficulties of organizing this conference demonstrate the limitations of a UN system which is on its last legs. This doesn’t mean the UN is unnecessary, quite the contrary, you’ve clearly understood that we need the UN, but we very clearly need an organization where decisions can be taken, where the decision-making organs are far more representative. It was the same for the G8 which was on its last legs, whereas the G20 can take decisions.

I guarantee you that there won’t be any more conferences meeting under conditions where no one can take decisions and where we have to be in permanent crisis to have a chance of getting a decision worthy of the name. It’s totally clear. Do you realize that to get a night-time meeting, we had to get to crisis point? Several times, we were completely deadlocked. Because when every country has a say on minor as well as major issues, how do you take decisions? It means you give the country which wants to hold things up absolutely gigantic power, because it knows perfectly well that decisions are by consensus and so it can block things. But in fact the problem goes far beyond that: there was the issue of the various delegations’ representation. Here too, the UN system where a country can have itself represented by its ambassador or some other senior official, whilst others are represented by their countries’ highest elected authority isn’t possible! In the G20, heads of State and governments are there in an official capacity. In the new EU institutional system we’ve decided that we wouldn’t send representatives to the European Council. Heads of State and governments themselves attend European Council meetings. Here in the UN process, you can be represented by an ambassador. For example, we had here the ambassador of Sudan who addressed the meeting many times – as was in fact his right – alongside the President of the United States and Chancellor Merkel. We haven’t all got the same level of political responsibility and ability to take decisions.

The system is on its last legs! We want it changed. Moreover, under these conditions it’s a miracle that we’ve nevertheless managed to come up with an accord worthy of the name – we can regret that it isn’t more ambitious, but it’s an accord which indisputably moves things on. So the system has to change and will change.

Thank you for asking this question. I don’t know if my argument has convinced you; and this goes far beyond Mr Ramussen who did his level best, under extremely difficult conditions, you understand, but the problem lies in the process itself. The G20 was set up because the other fora weren’t working well enough. Here too, the issue goes beyond Mr Ban Ki-moon. It’s simply that the international community has changed and has to give itself modern rules to take decisions and responsibility for its choices. (…).

Brussels, 11 December 2009

France and UK are working closely together on climate change

We agreed:

To work for an ambitious deal in Copenhagen, consistent with a maximum global warming of two degrees, to which all parties contribute, and which enables the EU to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2020.

To enable immediate implementation of the Copenhagen agreement we support the establishment of a “fast start” launch fund for 2010-12 which achieves $10 billion annually in 2012. A large amount of this should go to adaptation, especially in Africa, small island states and other poor and vulnerable countries. France and the UK will each contribute their fair share among the advanced economies – around €400 million ($600 million) a year. The UK is prepared to go further and contribute up to $800 million a year in the light of offers from others.

To ensure predictable and additional finance in the medium term to 2020 and beyond, we should make use of innovative financing mechanisms, such as the use of revenues from a global financial transactions tax and the reduction of aviation and maritime emissions and the auctioning of national emissions permits. We will work together on this.

Rainforest countries need the security of finance now and for the coming years. We believe around 20% of early finance should be allocated to forest protection. We want the Copenhagen agreement to agree a reduction in deforestation of 25% by 2015, leading to a 50% reduction in 2020 and a halt in 2030. The developed world should pay for the majority of this, supporting developing countries’ own efforts.

To this end we will work with developed countries and rainforest nations over the next few days to deliver an equitable and effective agreement on forest finance and governance. We will jointly attend a conference of rainforest countries of the Congo basin next week in Paris.

That long term financial support is needed to assist developing countries meet the costs of mitigation and adaptation, estimated at around €100 billion, in 2020.

We are determined that Copenhagen agrees to put in place stronger global environmental governance.

There is much at stake at Copenhagen. We will be doing all in our power to reach the ambitious and comprehensive global agreement the world needs.

Source of English text: 10 Downing Street website

President Sarkozy meets with the non-governmental organizations

President Sarkozy had a meeting today at the Elysée to discuss the Copenhagen conference with the main French non-governmental organizations and leading figures engaged in the fight against climate change.

In the presence of M. Jean-Louis Borloo, Ministre d’Etat, Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Marine Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, and Mme Chantal Jouanno, Minister of State responsible for Ecology, the Head of State reaffirmed the need in Copenhagen to come up with a political agreement commensurate with the challenges of climate change and designed to take the form of an international binding agreement as swiftly as possible.

The President welcomed the international groundswell in support of climate action since the publication of the joint Franco-Brazilian position last month. The presence in Copenhagen of virtually all the world’s heads of State provides a historic opportunity to conclude the agreement enabling the average global temperature rise to be limited to 2ºC by 2050.

The Head of State renewed France’s commitment to reduce her CO2 emissions, to which the Grenelle Environment Forum and carbon tax will make a substantial contribution. France has undertaken to do the utmost to ensure that the conditions for a 30% reduction in European Union emissions are fulfilled as soon as possible.

President Sarkozy also reiterated his determination that the Copenhagen agreement provide for the creation of a World Environment Organization (WEO) with a remit to monitor the preparation of the future treaty and check that every country fulfils its commitments. Lastly, for the Head of State, the final Copenhagen agreement will have to include a major funding stream to finance the fight against climate change in the poor countries, with contributions based on an international levy on financial transactions.

President Sarkozy concluded by reiterating that he firmly believed in a regular frank dialogue with civil society. But any dialogue has of necessity to have rules. Consequently, he deemed the recent intrusion of an NGO in the National Assembly a wholly unacceptable initiative.

Paris, December 4, 2009

The President of the Republic welcomes with a great deal of satisfaction the announcement by President Obama that he will attend the Copenhagen Summit on December 18. He is delighted by this decision which demonstrates the importance the United States attaches to the success of this Climate Conference.

The President of the Republic spoke with President Obama at the beginning of the week and hopes, more than ever, that all leaders will attend the Copenhagen Summit, so that the ambitious commitments needed to protect the planet and future generations can be made together.

Nicolas Sarkozy, New York September 09 / credit Elysée - L. Blevennec

Today, we have only 87 days left to succeed or fail. From the unanimous scientists, we know that global warming is a reality. No one can dispute this reality.

We know that we have to limit it to 2° and that if we don’t succeed, it will be a disaster. There’s no more disputing this. We are, regardless of the differences between us, the last generation that can take action. For the first time, we have to decide, not for our countries, not for our regions, not even for our continents, we have to decide for the planet.

To sum up, we have to choose between disaster or the solution. We are deciding for the whole planet and what we don’t decide, those who follow us will no longer be able to decide. Rarely has a choice been so crucial for the future of mankind.

Secretary-General, let’s look clearly at the situation we are in. We are today on the path to failure if we go on as we are. There’s no point in being hypocritical, no point in indulging in diplomatic or political tinkering. There’s no point even in my inflicting a grandiloquent speech on you 87 days from Copenhagen. We need proposals, action, and people to take responsibility.

We know perfectly well what the four principles are which will make Copenhagen a success:

• Reducing global emissions by 50% [below 1990 levels] by 2050;
• For the developed countries, we don’t need a reduction of 50%, but one of at least 80% by 2050;
• For the emerging countries, the growth of their emissions must be reduced, with technological and financial assistance from the developed countries; I’ll come back to this.

And finally, somehow or other, we’ll have to pay for the most vulnerable countries, those of Africa and the small island States, there’s no other choice.

What do we lack? Today we lack two things: will and confidence.

A lot of leaders are afraid of being asked to choose between growth and environmental protection, that’s understandable, confronted as they are by poverty and unemployment. But no one has to make this choice, and in Europe we are proving that you can move from high carbon growth to sustainable growth. We’ve proved this in Europe with the energy-climate package and we’ve proved it in France with the creation of environmental taxation.

No one will have to choose between unemployment and the environment, between hygiene and protecting the planet. As for good news, there isn’t much, but I want to salute the leadership of the new Japanese government, which has made some very strong commitments, as has China. But today we have to go far further.

I want to propose the establishment of an efficient mechanism to finance those who need it and to carry out technology transfers. If we don’t do this, the emerging countries won’t join us. And they have to join us because they too are accountable for the planet’s future.

Mexico has proposed a universal contribution, France supports it. The European Commission has estimated at €100 billion the potential annual cost between now and 2020 of helping the developing countries adapt to the new concept of sustainable growth – we are ready to do this. Really, developing and emerging countries, I tell you we are ready to make the financial and technology transfers. You yourselves must do what’s right for the planet.

I have to be frank: in France and Europe we are taxing polluting companies; no country will be able to get out of doing this. Either we all do it and we’ll help you with the financing and we’ll help you through technology transfers; or we don’t all do it and in that case we’ll be compelled to levy a carbon tax at Europe’s borders. Faced with the gravity of the situation, we can’t have one part of the world protecting the planet and another part of the world groundlessly refusing to do so – that’s not being equal to the challenge. For the moment, there’s no will to do this. We all have to do it, and we, the developed countries, will help you financially and technologically.

I also want to say that France will make proposals with Brazil and the Congo Basin countries on the forestry issue. 20% of emissions are due to the destruction of the forest. We have to help the countries with the world’s largest forests, which play a huge role in environmental protection, to maintain, protect and even develop them. That’s active solidarity. I’m thinking of the Amazon, the Congo Basin forest and of course the Siberian forest. Forests belong to mankind.

Finally, I’m keen for us to take a special initiative for Africa. Only 17% of Africans have access to primary energy, we can’t leave Africa in this situation. Basically, we, the developed countries, will have to pay and to transfer technology; you, the emerging countries, will have to commit to reducing your emissions without this damaging your growth; as for the poor countries, they must be at the heart of the Copenhagen strategy. But all of us will benefit from this new growth.

Finally, I shall end by making proposals. The first is that we at last decide to create a single world environment organization. Making a success of Copenhagen isn’t everything, we also have to be able to manage the consequences of the decisions taken in Copenhagen. There are around 60 scattered organizations dealing with the same questions, let’s create a world environment organization, decide in principle to do so in Copenhagen.

Secondly, I propose that we, heads of States of the main economies, which account for no less than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions, meet in the middle of November, i.e. between your meeting, Secretary-General, and Copenhagen, to stop grandstanding, making speeches which aren’t followed up by results, playing diplomatic games, and put concrete proposals on the table.

As you will have understood, ladies and gentlemen, France is absolutely convinced that time isn’t on our side, time is our judge, we are already living on borrowed time. Let’s face up to our responsiblities, not in speeches but in action, France and Europe are determined to do this. Thank you./.

Nicolas Sarkozy, Artemare September 09 / credit Elysée - L. Blevennec

Our world has reached a moment of truth. Admittedly, the global economic crisis we’re going through isn’t yet over. But today we must decide if we want to create a different world from the one we knew pre-crisis, a more sustainable, more environmentally friendly and fairer world. (…)

Without corrective action on our part, the current warming threatens to accelerate: by between 1.8º and 4º by 2100, with a risk of sea levels rising a further 18-59cm. It’s time to act.

I’m absolutely convinced that it’s at these times of great difficulty that we need to take the decisions to map out the future. A new world has to be born out of this unprecedented economic crisis. (…)

GRENELLE ENVIRONMENT FORUM

Since my election, I have wanted our country always to be out in front in the effort to take up what I know to be ineluctable environmental challenges. The Grenelle Environment Forum, which I proposed and Jean-Louis Borloo has been spearheading for two years, symbolizes and is delivering on France’s effort to be in the vanguard for sustainable growth.

Besides taking important measures on biodiversity, sustainable agriculture and waste recycling, the Grenelle Environment Forum was designed to be a vast plan for preparing our country for the post-oil, energy-efficient economy and increasing the use of renewable energies. Over €4 billion of public and private money will be invested by 2020. Over 600,000 new jobs are expected. I’m convinced we will create even more.

With the Grenelle Environment Forum, France has given herself the goal of cutting energy consumption in buildings and homes by nearly 40% by 2020. A big drop in energy consumption means everyone immediately gets extra money to spend. (…) We have decided to help our fellow citizens install solar heating systems, heat pumps and wood-fired heating systems. And we have created a zero-interest loan to finance insulation, available to everyone, up to a ceiling of €30,000 over 10 years. In barely three months, nearly 25,000 zero-interest eco loans have already been taken out. This year, we will exceed our initial objective of providing €1.2 billion for new works to improve the energy efficiency of homes.

With the Grenelle Environment Forum, France has set herself the goal of becoming the world leader for zero or near-zero emission energy production by developing renewable energies and drawing on French industry’s nuclear power know-how. In the coming years, we are going to devote as much money to research into renewable energies as to nuclear power: €200 million more, every year, to give our country a technological advance in the key sectors of energy storage, marine energies, second-generation biofuels and solar energy. There’s nothing coincidental about the recent announcement of the establishment in France of a world leader in solar panels.

INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDING/EU/COPENHAGEN SUMMIT

Finally, with the Grenelle Environment Forum and the economic stimulus plan, France has launched a unique programme for building sustainable infrastructures. For the first time since the Second World War, a canal will be built in France linking the Seine with Northern France and Europe. Work on four high-speed rail links is just about to start. By 2020, Paris and the regions will be getting nearly 2,000 km of new dedicated lanes for public transport vehicles [such as buses and trams] which the State is going to support. Everywhere, for people and goods, the aim is to create viable and regular alternatives to road transport.

After investing in the infrastructures, we’re also going to invest massively in rail freight. We have to open up new lorry-rail schemes, create, at last, the means of carrying freight at high speed, bringing railway services into our major ports, guaranteeing priority track access for freight trains.

Driven by these commitments, France promoted the Grenelle ambition throughout her European Union presidency. There was the negotiation of the “climate energy package”: the most tremendous plan ever adopted for cutting CO2 emissions. As a result of this decision, Europe has become the greatest laboratory for inventing tomorrow’s “green” technologies. It’s because we were the first to set ourselves unparalleled objectives that European technologies will tomorrow be the most advanced.

Next December, in Copenhagen, the conclusion of a global agreement on the climate will be at stake. Between then and now, France intends going on relentlessly pressing all the world’s nations to commit proactively to cutting their carbon dioxide emissions. Our message is simple: we, Europeans, have taken on board the consequences of our responsibility for climate change. We have pledged to cut our emissions by 20% between 2005 and 2020 and are ready to go further, up to 30% if every member faces up to its responsibilities. At the same time we are asking the rest of the world to move in the same direction. The rest of the world means Asia, the United States and also the emerging countries.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX/CARBON TAX

Confronted with the climate emergency, the threats presented by our dependency on oil and need to transform our growth model, it’s time France radically adapted her system of tax incentives and created a genuine environmental tax system. (…)

Last spring, I committed to do this: a new environmental tax, the carbon tax will be created: in 2010 it will be levied on oil, gas and coal, depending on the level of their carbon dioxide, the main gas responsible for climate change. This new tax will have only one goal: to encourage households and companies progressively to modify their behaviour and cut consumption of fossil energies which emit CO2. This tax will stimulate energy savings, reduce the oil and gas bills of both the country and families and create an incentive to step up development of green technologies.

Here let me point out that there will be no carbon tax on electricity. Electricity production in France emits very little CO2 thanks to our nuclear, hydro-electric and biomass power plants and also, increasingly, thanks to the new renewable energies. In Europe we are the country with the most renewable energies. How coherent would it be on one side to encourage the French to run electric cars and fit solar panels, and, on the other, tax them more for doing so? (…)

To continue cutting our emissions, set France on the post-oil path, it’s become essential to change our behaviour. And today this is achievable: for nearly two years now, the car bonus-malus scheme (1) has shown how even a limited financial incentive could make a big difference to our fellow citizens’ consumer choices: at the end of 2007 barely 15% of cars sold were clean cars. At the end of August 2009, 54% of sales were of cars below the 130gm CO2/km threshold. Conversely, the proportion of big CO2 emitters in total car sales dropped from 30% to 10% between the end of 2007 and last month. So the French are ready to commit to the essential change in their energy consumption provided they receive clear signals and are offered a fair contract. I want to commit myself here to the major principles which will govern the introduction of the carbon tax.

CARBON TAX/PROGRESSIVE INTRODUCTION

First principle: the carbon tax will be introduced progressively. (…)

In the market where emissions quotas are traded between major companies, the value of a tonne of CO2 has, since its creation in February 2009, been around €17. (…) So I have decided that the starting point for this new tax would be set by reference to the value of the CO2 emission quotas on the carbon market. I intend the introduction of the carbon tax to be a success for our country. This is why I tell all the most ardent defenders of the carbon tax that this measure’s success would be endangered were we to ask our fellow citizens to adapt to too brutal a change in energy prices. €17 per tonne of CO2 will already be a significant effort: nearly 4.5 euro-cents per litre of heating oil, 4 euro-cents per litre of petrol and about 0.4 euro-cents per kWh of gas. (…)

So let me make it quite clear that the level of the carbon tax will rise gradually over time. Here too, I shall not evade my responsibilities. We will just need to find the right rate at which to increase it. In any case, I want to make it clear: however much the carbon tax rises in the future, whatever increases there are in environmental taxation, the compensation the French receive will also have to increase, and do so commensurately.

SAME TOTAL TAX TAKE/GREEN CHEQUE

Second principle which I deem especially important: creating the carbon tax won’t increase the total tax take in our country. This for me is an absolutely sacrosanct rule. It means that the creation of the carbon tax is going to be accompanied by a simultaneous and equivalent drop in or disappearance of other taxes. The aim of the environmental tax isn’t to fill the State coffers, but to encourage the French and the companies to change their behaviour. So – and I make a very firm pledge here – the creation of the carbon tax won’t reduce the purchasing power of the French or penalize our companies’ competiveness.

More specifically, I want, for French households, the creation of the carbon tax to be accompanied either by a reduction in income tax for all households subject to it, or receipt of a “green cheque” for an equivalent sum for all households who aren’t. (…)

So the product, not far short of €3 billion, of the tax will be refunded to household through an income tax rebate or a green cheque. Of course, every family will pay the carbon tax on their energy consumption, which will encourage them to reduce it. This is the polluter-pays principle. But cutting consumption will be that much easier since every family will be compensated by a cheque or fixed reduction in tax so that the carbon tax doesn’t eat into their purchasing power. So at the end of the day, those deciding to reduce their energy consumption will be double winners: they will pay less carbon tax but will receive under the offsetting scheme the same sum as if they hadn’t economized. This is how, thanks to a bonus-malus mechanism, we’re going to give the French the means to change their behaviour in order to cut energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The malus is the carbon tax. For families, the bonus is the green cheque, or income tax rebate for the same amount.

As regards companies, when the carbon tax comes in 2010, they will benefit from the removal of the proportion of the taxe professionnelle [business tax based on capital and turnover] impacting on investment. Through this ambitious reform, our companies will be compensated for the cost of the carbon tax and, simultaneously, at last be able to invest without being fiscally penalized. (…)

BORDER CARBON TAX

(However,) we won’t combat climate change more effectively if the carbon tax ends up benefiting agricultural and fishery imports or disadvantaging French transport firms compared with competitors with less exigent environmental standards.

This is why, when I had the honour of being president of the European Council, I got the adoption of the possibility of bringing in a carbon tax on our borders. It would be intolerable if, just when we’re striving to produce and consume green products, we get imports from firms which have a competitive advantage because they aren’t complying with international commitments to reduce carbon tax emissions. Everyone would then lose out: the climate and jobs in our countries. I note that a few weeks ago the United States House of Representatives passed a bill also proposing a border carbon tax. I note too that the World Trade Organization has deemed such a mechanism perfectly compatible with its rules. This is a battle I’m going to lead. A carbon tax at the border is the natural complement to a domestic carbon tax. Far more importantly: a carbon tax at the borders is vital for our industries and jobs. It demands first of all the creation of the carbon tax in France. Our battle against pollution and climate change mustn’t be fought to the detriment of our industries.

TRANSPARENCY

Third principle: transparency! I want an independent commission to guarantee total transparency on offsetting the carbon tax. As you will have understood, I want clear rules for compensating households and companies for the carbon tax. So I propose the creation of a permanent independent commission to monitor French environmental taxation. (…)

GRENELLE INCENTIVES/TRANSPORT

Fourth principle: the State will continue providing a great deal of support for households’ efforts to cut their energy consumption and move towards renewable energies. All the incentives developed in the framework of the Grenelle Environment Forum will be maintained and prolonged. (…)

In the crucial transport sphere, thanks to technological advances the next few months will see the arrival of rechargeable electric or hybrid vehicles on the market. On 23 September Jean-Louis Borloo will present the electric and hybrid vehicles plan I announced at the last Motor Show. This will mean, in 16 months’ time, car manufacturers will be able to offer all the French the possibility of buying an electrical or hybrid vehicle at an acceptable price by benefiting from the super bonus of €5,000 (for vehicles with an emission level of below 60g CO2/km).

CARBON TAX/ECONOMIC GROWTH

Ladies and gentlemen, the creation of a carbon tax is anything but an insignificant decision. It is a carefully thought-out strategic choice and major fiscal change as well as an economic decision of primordial importance. (…)

By bringing in an environmental tax on fossil energies, we’re going to get the ball rolling in the whole area of green growth. Because the carbon tax is going to encourage our fellow citizens to “go green”, it will offer new massive and promising outlets for all our manufacturers capable of producing “green products”. With the carbon tax and Grenelle Environment Forum measures, the State is going to create the conditions for a huge increase in the size of our country’s “green market”. France will be the first country of this size to go this far. The aim, for all our manufacturers, is not to miss this opportunity. (…)

You see, ladies and gentlemen, the same applies to environmental taxation as to many other things: there are those who talk and those who do. For me, it’s basically a question of responsibility. Responsibility towards our children and the generations to come, since this measure will help create a better world for them. Responsibility towards the French of today. I gave them my word two and a half years ago by signing the ecological pact proposed by Nicolas Hulot (2), which had the creation of a carbon tax as its second objective, behind establishing a huge sustainable development ministry, the one Jean-Louis Borloo heads today.

The situation is too serious for us to fool ourselves or pretend. All my life I’ve wanted to restore the reputation of politics. To put it plainly, restoring the reputation of politics means believing that nothing is ever inevitable. Believing that there’s no problem, however big, that a nation like ours can’t resolutely tackle if it decides to, be it raising the moral standards of global capitalism or fighting climate change. Restoring the reputation of politics means believing that what political leaders say has to remain meaningful. And in no way is it inevitable that the passage of time, difficulties of the moment or prevailing demagoguery will overcome the finest ideas, the most essential commitments or be victorious in the most noble battles. (…)./.

The French village of Artemare (Ain)