DObviously, some elected environmentalists are angry with modernity. Grégory Doucet, the EELV mayor of Lyon, was the guest of RTL this Wednesday, July 20, 2022. Reacting to the recent fires and the heat wave that swept our country, the latter called for us to change our ways of getting around, in classic Newspeak of political ecology: it would therefore be necessary to “considerably transform our mobility”. In particular, in the viewfinder of the city councilor, short plane trips. For him, “we are not going to spend a weekend in Casablanca because we want to”.
Except that in reality, yes. In France, it is still possible to travel as you wish, without having to report to the State. This is what seems to annoy the chosen one. But this statement should challenge us: if Grégory Doucet or his acolytes came to power tomorrow in France, would it be necessary to justify his air travel according to the length of the stay? What would be the reasons that could justify an exemption in their eyes? Would there be a list? As always with this kind of claim, it’s terrifying to consider who, exactly, will have to determine what makes air travel legitimate.
Would the measure at least have a positive impact on the fight against global warming? Air traffic generated 2.5% of CO emissions2 in 2018. A significant portion of these emissions are from long-haul flights and private aircraft. If every gesture counts, and it is undoubtedly important to favor train travel when available, the restriction of air traffic in France as many environmentalists propose would have virtually no positive impact on the climate.
READ ALSOWoe to the city whose prince is a child
Moreover, it is interesting to note that the same Grégory Doucet is opposed to the creation of the tunnel linking Lyon to Turin, which would however considerably reduce the number of people taking the plane to reach Milan. This same tunnel would also reduce road freight while promoting a carbon neutral means of transport, but these arguments leave unmoved a politician who nevertheless claims, as here, that each gram of CO2 less in the air must count.
This kind of inconsistency is very symptomatic of a certain number of environmentalists: realistic solutions to achieve the objectives of the fight against global warming do not interest them. They prefer to frighten voters then ready to entrust them with power, which they would use to reinforce state control over individual actions. It would simply be a question of monitoring, punishing and controlling French citizens, with no other effect than the restriction of their freedoms, which, for some, may indeed constitute an end in itself.
The guilt game…
To its greatest misfortune, our country thus sees ecology monopolized by individuals incapable of pragmatism. Fewer planes, but fewer trains; less CO emissions2 while shutting down nuclear power plants; more people in the countryside, but fewer cars; more organic farming, while reducing the agricultural area. Grégory Doucet is not the only one to be guilty of this kind of contradiction, far from it. But his recent release is quite symptomatic of the paucity of environmental thought in France. It remains to be hoped that people who will find something better to offer than performative efforts without tangible results will reclaim the subject. In the meantime, let’s continue to travel as we wish, without listening to individuals whose political success depends on our sense of guilt.
READ ALSOLyon: environmentalists declare war on cars