Climate Energy contribution: the full Rocard report

[Christophe]

Thanks to JT22, on this subject: https://www.econologie.com/forums/taxe-carbo ... t7762.html who found us the full Rocard report.

The ROCARD report:

http://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2009/0728//300366268.pdf

source Les Echos

I have mirrored it here: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... IdaL8c.pdf

1st analysis:

I flew over but I think it's a lot of "jokes" that we (well those who are somewhat interested in the Climate / Energy problem) have known for years ...

Read especially the conclusion ... whose title summarizes this case well (see CCE controversy here:

"the keys to acceptability" ...

The 1st paragraph of this conclusion is "good":

There is something extraordinary, completely unexpected for a society as confrontational as ours, in the consensus expressed by almost all of the experts from all walks of life who participated in these reflections. This consensus relates to the fact that the pursuit of carbon dioxide emissions constitutes a historically brief long-term threat to life on the planet, that among the multiple responses required, significant taxation of carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most relevant and more effective, and that if it is clear that in order to completely avert this danger it is the whole world which must orient itself towards this decision, it is also clear that France has a duty of initiative in anticipation and drive

What French arrogance!

Hey question: what if this TIPP bis TIC tax was the "logical continuation" of the 20% green vote in the last elections, not to "make a gesture for the planet" but to raise the French AGAINST political ecology? With sarko, we have seen others ... twisted methods ...

[Christophe]

I did some "analyzes" on the compensation part (pages 49 to 51), to read at the end of this page: https://www.econologie.com/forums/taxe-carbo ... 2-110.html

[Christophe]

2nd interesting point, the members who participated in the round table. It's the last page of the report.

COMPOSITION OF THE ROUND TABLE OF JULY 9
Chairman
· Michel ROCARD, former Prime Minister
Assisted by Mr. Yves MARTIN, honorary general engineer of Mines, former president of the Interministerial Mission on the greenhouse effect as well as Dominique BUREAU, Pascal DUPUIS, Marie-Christine LEPETIT and Henri LAMOTTE.

Presidents and rapporteurs of each workshop
· Olivier GODARD and Christian PERTHUIS (for the workshop 1- general interest of the tool)
· Alain QUINET and Mathilde LEMOINE (for workshop 2 - impacts and implementation)
Round table members
· Philippe AMBROSI (environmental economist, World Bank)
· Monique BARBUT (President of the Global Environment Facility - UNEP)
· Gaby BONNAND (National Secretary of the CFDT, in charge of economic policy)
· Gilles CARREZ (general rapporteur of the finance committee of the National Assembly)
· Jean-Pierre CLAMADIEU (President of the MEDEF sustainable development commission)
· Patrick CRIQUI (Director of Research at CNRS, responsible for studies in the Department of Energy and Environmental Policy at LEPII, Laboratory for Economics of Production and International Integration)
· Walter DEFFAA (Director General Taxation and Customs Union at the European Commission)
· Jean-Martin FOLZ (former CEO of PSA, president of AFEP)
· Roger GUESNERIE (professor at the Collège de France and chairman of the board of directors of the Paris School of Economics)
· Nicolas HULOT and Alain GRANDJEAN (FNH)
· Jean JOUZEL (vice-president of the scientific group of the IPCC)
· Henri JOYEUX (President of Familles de France)
· Fabienne KELLER (senator UMP, president of the working group on environmental taxation)
· Jean-Yves LE DEAUT (PS deputy for Meurthe et Moselle)
· Reine-Claude MADER (President of the CLCV association, Consumption, housing and living environment)
· Philippe MARINI (general rapporteur of the Senate finance committee) (unable to attend)

I would not make any judgment on the presence of some ... of you now

Jancovici was not there but his friend Alain GRANDJEAN if (they wrote at least 1 book together) ... so his ideas were surely put on the table ...

[Christophe]

I did some "analyzes" on the compensation part (pages 49 to 51), to read at the end of this page: https://www.econologie.com/forums/taxe-carbo ... 2-110.html

As apparently it is not too readable, here is what I said there:

Well I started reading the rocard report in detail (for the brave, here it is: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... IdaL8c.pdf )

Regarding compensation, the main question at the time, here are some details.

In bold, the important stuff.
In italics, my remarks

p49

3. Compensation to households

Two forms of household compensation were discussed during workshop 2: purely lump sum compensation and a reduction in the compulsory levy.

a) The first type of compensation would consist of a flat-rate allowance paid to each household

Such an allocation has two advantages:
- it is simple and legible;
- she benefits, as a proportion of their income, more to low-income households than to high-income households.

However, it raises two types of questions:
- universal, the allowance is less targeted than existing flat-rate allowances such as the "tank premium". In its current version, it does not take into account the specificities of the most exposed households, in particular low-income households and households located in rural areas;
- the CCE revenues mobilized to pay the allowance are not used to reduce levies that penalize activity and employment. We are thus depriving ourselves of part of the "double dividend", a point illustrated in particular by the CIRED simulations.

Hey op, 1st point 1st lie admitted by defenders of the tax which will therefore necessarily lower purchasing power: hey yes levying a tax it costs ... and 100% will therefore not be paid back ...

b) The second possible compensation is a reduction in compulsory deduction stricto sensu

The debates brought up several options, without it being possible to say that a consensus has emerged in favor of a particular measure, due to the difficulty of identifying a
universal tax, the reduction of which could be targeted at households most exposed to higher fossil fuel prices:
- income tax not being paid by low-income households, its reduction cannot constitute targeted compensation. Tax credits to support investments in energy savings or renewable energies could benefit all households, including those who are not taxable; but they would risk lacking in legibility and would only benefit those concerned with a one-year lag;
- the reduction in VAT would be a poorly targeted and unfair response;
- the reduction in social security contributions has been mentioned, but raises the question of the financing of our social protection system;
- the active solidarity income or the employment bonus were also mentioned.

Brief on the 2nd point, they don't even agree (it's good to admit it) so it will probably never be done, only modest households will therefore have compensation ...

p50 --51

4. Compensation to companies

Two tracks were studied during the workshop to limit or compensate loss of competitiveness in sectors exposed to international competition : the first track is that of a
border adjustment; the second that of a reduction in levies.

a) An adjustment at the borders would allow European producers to be placed in conditions of fair competition compared to their international competitors.

What is this bullshit? Intra-European import taxes?

The border tax adjustment - sometimes called an external carbon tax - consists of taxation on the importation of products which would not be subject to an equivalent contribution in their country of origin (including ALL the countries, even the "cleaner" ones than France ...), as well as a zero-rating on export of products that supported the contribution in Europe.

The fiscal adjustment at the borders has been the subject of debates which bring out the following conclusions:
- fiscal adjustment at borders is a relevant component of a comprehensive package enabling Europe to pursue an ambitious environmental policy, founded at the same time
on emission quotas and green taxation. As such, it constitutes a useful "weapon" in international negotiations and testifies to the will of the public authorities to reconcile ambition
protection of employees in the exposed sectors;
- even if the World Trade Organization seems to adopt a more open position, the fiscal adjustment at the borders raises questions of implementation. In particular, it is necessary to be able to define undoubtedly the carbon content of imported products (ah it becomes interesting!), as well as the environmental taxation they have already supported.

For these reasons, the border adjustment project should not lead to a reflection on the recycling of part of the revenues drawn from the CEC to protect the competitiveness of businesses.

Blablabla ... punaize but what an intellectual masturbation of a politician this thing! I propose the following, zone outside the EU (or outside Kyoto), it suffices to increase customs / import taxes in relation to "carbon" criteria specific to the exporting country: for example, CO2 / electric kWh of the country and the distance from the country in question ... AND BASTA! It will already be enough for a start ... and at least it will not weigh on France ...

The USA has always done it well with certain French products ... for completely economic reasons!

b) Compensation in the form of a reduction in direct debits must be made based on independent criteria for pollutant emissions. (er, isn't that a carbon tax?)

In this context, two options have emerged: a reduction in employers' social security contributions and a reduction in the professional tax. (The professional tax? What is it doing here? Too good it has been "sold" to us twice?).

- The lower employer social security contributions could, according to the DGTPE and CIRED estimates, have very positive effects on employment. However, as with households, it raises a difficulty insofar as the social expenditure that these contributions come to finance is bound to increase in the years to come.

Mwarf ... do they believe what they say there? The French social "system" is already supposedly bankrupt ... I'm not talking about pensions ...

- The reduction in the professional tax, by reducing the average production costs of companies, would constitute a good "antidote" to the risk of loss of competitiveness induced by the
CEC. This option would imply careful consideration of the implications of such redeployment on local public finances and territorial organization.

Off topic...

These two main options for compensation to companies remain general and do not prejudge more specific compensation methods which could be taken towards professions currently benefiting from exemption measures (farmers, fishermen, road transporters, taxis, ambulance attendants, etc.).

Ok as usual, lobbies will have an easier time ... it's good to admit it ...