The appeal of November 17 joins the movement of the red caps against the "eco-tax".
This kind of indignation is typical of our society because it crystallises deep contradictions:
-On the one hand the will to want to preserve a mode of transport, the particular automobile and by extension the purchasing power (that is to say the power of action / modification on the environment) while the conditions necessary to maintain this one diminishes (
peak all oil).
-On the other hand the inscription of this movement in full during period of "
climatic steps".
So as said
Jean Yanne:
"Everyone wants to save the planet, but no one wants to take the trash out", that is to say that changes are desirable .... for others and for others on conditions that they do not interfere with consumption habits, in short, do not change anything to keep everything in place!
For all that, treating the defenders of this type of movement as idiots or populists arises from a misunderstanding of "socio-energy" issues in our country (and in other industrialized nations).
For several years, we have seen a relative decline in purchasing power and a decline in so-called average classes (inflation at 2,2%).
Outside a social class is above all a class of energy, ie a group of individuals dissipating a given amount of energy and which guarantees their positioning in the order of precedence.
Inducing therefore in a group of individuals to format exponential consumption a diet irreparably leads to discontent, hence the emergence of social tension,
so it's a perfectly normal thing.
What is objectionable to the extent made by the government,
it is the complete absence of counterparties.
This tax * which brings in 3,9 billion / year will not be allocated to public transport but to the very hazy "energy transition", therefore included in the pocket of industrial monopolies.
In fact it is only 19% of the recipe that will be used for this cause, the rest being primarily a way to replenish the desperately empty coffers of the state and the poisoned gifts of President Macron.
It would have been advisable to increase the price of fuel according to a triannual readable calendar and to subsidize public transport so that it became free, to guarantee the piggyback and the development of the small railway lines.
With the measures of the government we will move towards the umpteenth tax mismanagement that will propel us when the time comes to a crisis that will be very difficult to get out of lack of adaptation, what is the saying:
Governing is planning!
* included in the TICPE which pays 37 billion / year.