Tribune. In a tribune at World [publiée le 03 septembre], After the publication of the report submitted on June 23 to the President of the Republic on “The great economic challenges”, Christian Gollier and Jean Tirole, two eminent members of the committee which worked on this report, clarify their proposal on an essential point. After reiterating that the extension of the carbon market remains the flagship measure to be introduced, they specify that any other measure taken by the public authorities (are cited in particular “The establishment of standards, infrastructures, training in new professions “green” ” ) must be subject to a prior cost / benefit analysis. According to the authors in fact, “It is crucial to equip these public actions with socio-economic evaluation tools based on the estimation of costs by tCO2 “.
In this regard, Gollier and Tirole only develop the proposal already formulated in the “Blanchard-Tirole Report” where it can be read that, for any measure complementary to the carbon market, it is appropriate “To be based on a complete and systematic cost / benefit analysis” (p. 149). This assertion is based on the fact that not all measures are equally effective. This is how they note that “Replacing the thermal car with the electric car remains costly for the community: 200 to 300 euros per tonne of CO2 avoided (tCO2e) in 2025 ”. Likewise, in the habitat, they report, “ the mechanism of energy saving certificates encouraging households to better insulate their homes cost around 350 euros per tCO2e ” while “In comparison, replacing an oil-fired boiler with a heat pump has a cost of around 50 euros per tCO2e ”.
What “discount rate”?
This proposal seems to have struck the corner of common sense. Who would choose to spend more where you can spend less? However, the authors’ proposal, too “Obvious” that it appears, meets with solid objections.
The first is due to the very nature and intrinsic difficulties presented by the cost / benefit analysis. On what horizon are we leading it? Two years, five years? Twenty years ? Likewise, do we only include the costs and benefits of the measure analyzed on its immediate environment, or do we take into account its overall effects on the economy and society?
“Isn’t it time to abandon the idea of bringing climate into the economy to think about the best way to bring the economy into the climate?” “
You have 45.31% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.