Ihe report by Jean Pisani-Ferry and Selma Mahfouz entitled “ The Economic Impact of Climate Action “, published on May 22, offers an economic assessment of the cost of part of the necessary ecological reconversion of France, that which concerns the climate, without mentioning the nine fundamental ecological questions highlighted by the Stockholm Resilience Center.
However, the “planetary limits” have already been exceeded on six of them. Apart from the climate, the “economic cost of the transition” also concerns biodiversity, the artificialization of land, the abuse of nitrates and pesticides, plastics, water, etc.
But the report forgets another important point: the consideration of imports. It is thus asserted that “despite a 50% increase in gross domestic product (GDP) between 1995 and 2019, France’s carbon footprint has decreased by 20% over the same period”not to mention the role of imports in the carbon footprint.
An official document published at the end of 2022 in “Data and statistical studies” says however: “Emissions associated with imports represent just over half (51%) of the footprint. Compared to 1995, France’s carbon footprint [en 2021] decreased by 9%. Domestic emissions have been reduced by 27% while emissions associated with imports have increased by 20%”.
The report therefore greatly overestimates the reduction in the carbon footprint (20% instead of 9%). In fact very little has been done since 1995, if you take imports into account. The relocation of French industry has played a major role in reducing CO emissions2 on the territory. But the ecological reconversion must on the contrary encourage industrial relocation to reduce the ecological cost of transport as well as the trade deficit.
Foreign investment must be controlled
The report has the immense merit of recommending a strengthening of investment: it should be increased by 2% of GDP per year in 2030, 67 billion euros, half assumed by the State and half by companies . The largest part, 48 billion, relates to buildings and their renovation. But if the building is seriously taken into account, the rest is not enough.
Much more investment is needed to improve rail and renewable energy production, to convert the electricity network, but also to solve other ecological issues such as the abuse of nitrates and pesticides, threats to biodiversity, water quality… The ecological issue in the broad sense also includes health and pharmaceuticals. The investment effort by 2030 should therefore rather be estimated at 4% more GDP per year, 2% assumed by companies and 2% by the State.
You have 61.27% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.