Urban tolls to 5 € or 10 € in France soon?

[Did67]

that it is possible to have both mastery of the language of the masters et a critical vision of a certain radicalism ***.

To which I add: we have the right to express ourselves even when we have neither one nor the other. And it is not even certain that what we are going to say is more stupid.

[Ahmed]

Did, you write:

To which I add: we have the right to express ourselves even when we have neither one nor the other. And it is not even certain that what we are going to say is more stupid.

You're absolutely right and I mentioned it before. Anecdotally (but maybe not so much!), There is a long time ago, during a meeting on GMOs, it is a discussion with a shepherdess who knew nothing about the technical aspect of GMO that made me understand that I was wrong, simply by exposing his point of view that I found very fair. I owe a lot to this brief meeting ...

As you know through other messages, there is a difference between an opposition on the bottom and an acceptance say measured and without illusion of a measure that can have a sense in itself, even if it can not express that inside a framework that deprives him of much of this meaning. Consider the thermal insulation of the building: it is a good thing, whatever the point of view considered, except that one should not be fooled by the scope of this measure, since the energy savings realized at term will be canceled by additional consumption in the buildings themselves (regulations, automations, connected devices ...) or in other sectors (this is what has been observed for a long time). The full meaning of this measure could only come in the context of a strong desire to reduce consumption of all kinds (this aspect is generally associated with the promotion of insulation, but to abuse people of good will).

In connection with this remark and on another level, I think that the most harmful of those mentioned above (those who monopolize speech) are not the direct defenders of the established order, but a wide range of those who challenge him (since they are more credible to more critical audiences) under anti-capitalist labels, even though what they preach is a downright counterproductive altercapitalism that basically justifies what they claim to be fighting in detail, it is these, among others, that Sen-no-sen name the "useful idiots".
In short, a moderately useful measure is taken does not bother me more than that, unless it serves as a derivation of actions with a systemic scope.
"The lasting illusion is the opium of the people"!

[Ahmed]

Although I have no doubt about your good intentions, the government's call for action is very dangerous as authoritarian tendencies are already clearly beginning to emerge and could, under the pretext of urgency ecological, find a form of justification to a radical ecofascism (him too!).

In the case of the Gardanne power station (which interests me a lot), the Regional Nature Park officials had opposed the project from the beginning; however, after many vicissitudes, they were forced (under pain of abolition of public subsidies) to consent to it, subject to a concession: the local levy would be reduced by half. This decision has led to the massive importation of timber from the US NE coast and the deforestation that goes with it.
However, they were right to start this unequal fight, if only for ethical reasons ...
The authorities (the word is explicit!) Are very embarrassed when there is a public protest against their decisions, but when big interests are at stake, the outcome is rarely on the side of the protesters.

[Did67]

My thoughts were a little more subtle, though perhaps poorly expressed.

I want to convince the public that "banging hard" is essential. And that, therefore, the state takes the consequent legislative measures.

It is futile to hope that this will happen if a "movement of opinion" does not carry it. No government is suicidal ...

But I see that here as elsewhere, many are against, for the reasons n times invoked: it does not affect the rich, or, it does not change anything fundamentally [because that's where we left our exchange!]. ..

I put my sentence in context. Even if it is not sufficiently clear, it is clear that I am not calling for government action. But that I call for our mentalities to change (the look at taxes, and therefore "punitive taxation" and therefore the softness of carbon taxation or the refusal of urban tolls):

Knowing that we will tax, I find it fortunate that we tax things which we wrongly thought were "infinite": the space of city centers, which we allow ourselves to degrade otherwise more seriously than a tag on a bus! To the detriment of the quality of life of all (noise, accidents), of the health of all (including and especially of those who make the effort not to pollute! Can we imagine a worse injustice?).

We will be taxed. So let's tax where it can help change things "elsewhere". Let's stop blaming punitive ecology and finally knock on it! But strong !!!

The sentence would have been more clear if I had written:

"In any case, we will be taxed. So let's accept that we are taxed where it can help to change things" otherwise harmful "from which we suffer or our loved ones suffer. Let's stop being against on the grounds of" punitive ecology "and that the government finally bangs. But hard!"

[Did67]

Although I have no doubt about your good intentions, the government's call for action is very dangerous as authoritarian tendencies are already clearly beginning to emerge and could, under the pretext of urgency ecological, find a form of justification to a radical ecofascism (him too!).

Yes. I omitted this aspect, which deserves the greatest attention.

And whose solution can only be in understanding and acceptance by the greatest number (which is not easy, since already here, it is not won!).

[Ahmed]

On the last point, first: remember what I had already mentioned here, Christine Lagarde, President of the IMF promoting austerity by declaring, I quote, "we must tighten our belts"! Of course, she did not see fit to specify that this advice (?) Only applied to others ...

I hear what you are saying and I want to put it back in shape according to my vision of things: you are completely right on an essential point: the measures to be taken must be drastic, but they must also be accepted by public opinion ( this is what you also say by wishing that they are carried by a broad movement *), but what you perceive badly according to me, it is that once passed to the state mill, these "virtuous" measures go to be turned around like a glove and aggravate what needed improvement. Why? Because apart from the decrease of others which is not opposed to it, the techno-economic system directs the leaders and they can all the less abstain from it when they receive narcissistic gratifications (and only the super- narcissists are likely to figure in this political class, by definition).
The result would therefore be an intensification of all kinds of transitions, as long as this mobilizes capital capable of producing what it is for, a condition which is all the easier to fulfill than the subsidies levied on the social body for almost "patriotic reasons. "would come to the aid of this objective. I let you judge the collateral damage on ecosystems as well as on social relationships ...

I do not condemn a certain naivety when it is sincere (often it is feigned, when it is the act of professional manipulators), but I must warn against its consequences: "Hell is paved with good intentions".

* "We can allow ourselves to think", as it would say Coluche that if a sufficient critical mass is assembled, the state is no longer needed. This supposes a conceptual lucidity which is difficult to envisage, because if the institutions are initially excluded, they will necessarily be reintroduced by various means (in particular "green" organizations!), To orient this movement in a direction which preserves their interests.

[Ahmed]

I split my message a bit for clarity. You speak, rightly, of the difficulty of a joint action, because of the previous necessity to agree on a minimal and coherent platform. I do not underestimate this obstacle in practice, but I firmly believe that si a minimum of conceptual lucidity prevailed (we are far from it), it would be possible to recognize that we are all manipulated by a system and that it works in such a way that it drives us collectively to our loss. This could be the sufficient basis to consider shifting the trajectory.
It is for this reason that, for example, the congestion charging is a false good idea, since it accentuates the divisions of the society with the aim rather mediocre to maintain the maximum of bearable traffic with regard to the material limitations (infrastructures, pollution ). For me, there is no doubt that the social question is the nodal point of the affair, since the divisions divert from what brings us together objectively.

[Christophe]

First real "victory" * of the Yellow Vests, obviously the congestion charge in France will be abandoned: https://www.lemonde.fr/pollution/articl ... 52666.html

Government renounces congestion charge and adjourns heavyweight sticker

The bill of orientation of mobilities, to be presented on Monday, has been modified as a result of the mobilization of "yellow vests".

This is called a nice coaster. Anxious not to give the "yellow vests" another reason to fuel their anger and strengthen their movement, the government has decided to give up urban tolls. They have indeed been removed from the bill of orientation on mobility (LOM) to be presented, Monday November 26, Council of Ministers and which Le Monde could access.

Urban tolls, which have existed for many years abroad (London, Stockholm or Milan), were still included in the text in October. It provided for the introduction of a "congestion tariff" to limit automobile traffic in urban centers and to reduce environmental pollution, starting with air pollution. This rate was set at 5 euros for large cities of more than 500 000 inhabitants (less than a dozen in France, according to INSEE), and 2,50 euros in those of more than 100 000 inhabitants (about one hundred) .

(...)

You will notice that some journalists are therefore aware of the information BEFORE their official presentation!

ps: the "" are there because there was not only bad in the idea of ​​urban tolls but not in the current economic context ...