UA broad and sustained debate has finally opened in France on the need to combine ecological transition and social justice and we can only be delighted. To put it simply, the ecological transition is necessary and it is social justice that will make it possible. But it is important to clearly identify three nodes of the just transition, at a time when the public authorities are preparing to engage in action that is intended to be decisive.
The first node relates to the role in the ecological social transition of the “rich”, that is to say in reality to the challenge of luxurious lifestyles for those who benefit from them and deadly for the rest of the world. A position regularly put forward on this subject in recent times in France consists in suggesting that it would be counter-productive, if not useless, to “target” these unsustainable behaviors (private jets, repeated distant trips, etc.) , on the grounds that the transition would involve a collective effort to which everyone would be called upon to contribute.
This position appears questionable on two counts, and first of all with regard to the orders of magnitude at stake. while a tax on their assets could bring in France 25% of the revenue needed to finance investments in decarbonizing the economy (depending on the scope of their assessment).
Engage the more affluent
Both from the point of view of their responsibility and their ability to pay, “targeting” the wealthiest therefore seems perfectly relevant. But, above all, a human transition is a matter of social dynamics, that is to say of a chain reaction set in motion by a primer. The American sociologist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) showed, at the turn of the 20th century, how the conspicuous consumption behaviors of the leisure class spread by capillarity throughout society.
The same social logic explains why it is reasonable to begin by involving the wealthiest, to reduce the weight, both real and symbolic, of their overconsumption. To put it another way, we must first tax luxury emissions with social recycling of revenue, rather than survival emissions without social compensation of levies, as was done in 2018, with the consequence of the revolt of “vests yellow”.
You have 61.44% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.