Borloo Sarkozy: the ecology economy, anti-crisis growth?

[Christophe]

Extracts from an interview with Borloo by lesEchos:

Ecology is an essential element for emerging from the crisis

On June 22, Nicolas Sarkozy will deliver a speech to the Congress meeting in Versailles. Will "green growth" be part of the major projects that the President of the Republic wants to promote?

The president wanted the Grenelle of the environment and arbitrated all legal, fiscal and budgetary measures ... to allow this mutation and green growth. But the brutality of the financial crisis has focused all eyes. Six months ago, remember, people's immediate concern was whether their savings would be well protected. Today we are tackling another sequence. I am convinced that the political bearing of environmental issues will change. In fact, it is fascinating to note the progress made in public opinion over the past two years. Remember the ecological pact of Nicolas Hulot, reference in the matter. Today, the Grenelle de l'Environnement commitments go even further and this is only the beginning of an ongoing process! Green growth is a central concern.

Because of the score of environmentalists to Europeans?

No, but because we are able to demonstrate that ecology is not only a source of expenditure, but an essential element for ending a massive and structuring crisis for the whole of society. Politics is not about launching “oukases”, you have to make sense of it. And what better message than this: the 15 Grenelle programs will allow the creation of more than 600.000 jobs over the 2009-2020 period, most of them in the first three years. It is an international consulting firm, the Boston Consulting Group, which says so and which has analyzed the major measures and commitments of the Grenelle de l'Environnement already taken. If we look closely, we notice how quickly Grenelle employment is growing, reaching 530.000 jobs in 2011.

And after?

Some might say that these jobs will disappear once the railway line construction or thermal renovation programs are completed. On the contrary, I am convinced that the very strong growth curve will continue, if only to respect the objective of dividing our CO2 emissions by four by 2050 thanks to the launch of new measures. As always, it is the trend reversals that are the heaviest. It takes a lot more energy to go from zero to one kilometer / hour than from 100 to 101 (uh a) I don't see the report well and b) we have to check it! Michel K.?). If we put in place the necessary training, it is possible that 3 to 4 million jobs will be concentrated in these sectors within fifteen years.

The following: http://www.lesechos.fr/info/france/4875581.htm

We would like to believe it ... but it's crazy how politicians can draw erroneous conclusions on a single ballot ... no there is no "green wave" of opinion which still largely prefers its bank account than the environmental Protection...

Concretely finding a job in the current environment is the cross and the banner: a) to find it b) to keep it (generally these are young, precarious or subsidized jobs ...). But obviously this the departments do not say ...

[Christophe]

Another article on growth:

For a full employment society without growth, by Jean Gadrey

We are going to have to change the development paradigm. The crisis is leading us there. Obviously, voters are thinking about it, and not just those who voted "green". The current paradigm is based on the imperative of growth, with the following reasoning:

1 - There will always be gains in labor productivity, because technical progress makes it possible to "produce the same thing with less labor";

2 - To maintain employment, it is therefore necessary either to constantly reduce working hours at the rate of productivity gains, or to increase production (this is growth) at the same rate, or to mix these two solutions.

This scheme has been verified for half a century, although with failures. It will collapse. Jobs will have to be massively created without growth or productivity gains. For two reasons.

The first is that productivity gains certainly make it possible to produce more goods with the same amount of work, but not with the same amount of natural resources, energy and various pollution. This was not too serious as long as we stayed far from the thresholds of depletion or natural renewal of these resources. This is now becoming the major problem. We will therefore have to favor solutions that save not only labor (productivity gains), but also, increasingly, natural resources and waste (sustainability gains). Which leads to the second flaw in the "growthist" reasoning.

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/ ... _3232.html

[Christophe]

Here is another interview that I think is more relevant, extract:

Sarkozy, a "very pale green" ecology
NOUVELOBS.COM | 13.06.2009 | 16: 29

After the electoral success of Europe Ecology, Olivier Ferrand, president of Terra Nova, a think tank close to the PS, and Yann Queinnec, director of the NGO Sherpa which brings together lawyers, deliver a very critical analysis of Grenelle 1 and 2. And the stimulus package they consider pale green.

Obs.com - In an article published in the "Rebonds" pages of Liberation (April 28) which in a way foreshadowed the success of Daniel Cohn Bendit, you write that the recovery plan not only does not apply the Grenelle de l 'Environment but that around thirty projects are "incompatible grenello"! What are the most striking examples?

- Olivier Ferrand - The recovery plan for the automotive sector, for example, is a real incentive to buy polluting cars. The scrapping bonus of 1.000 euros is introduced for the purchase of a new vehicle emitting up to 160g of CO2 per km while the average of the current car fleet is 148g, the ecological bonus starts at 130g and that the European target for 2012 is 120g! Exit the generalization in series of the catalytic converter, the alternator-starter, the particle filter ... In infrastructure, the plan invests disproportionately in road transport. Three new motorways are planned, in direct opposition to the Grenelle which had concluded that it was necessary to stop the extension of the national motorway network. The case of the Pau / Langon motorway, planned at the heart of a rich and fragile ecosystem, is the most distressing.
Renewable energies are far from being developed, while France has committed to having 2020% of renewable energies in its consumption in 23. Finally, neither job creation nor the consequences of the plan in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or impact on biodiversity are quantified. Didn't Grenelle promise a reversal of the burden of proof?

- Yann Queinnec - Among the most emblematic projects, we can mention that of the Formula 1 circuit of Flins in the Yvelines. The chosen territory is home to the second largest catchment of drinking water in Ile-de-France. In accordance with the commitments of the Grenelle Environment Forum, it was planned that the ownership of the protection perimeter would be transferred to the Regional Agency for Green Areas to deploy an organic farming activity there. The establishment of a Formula 1 circuit on a 175 hectare plot intended for organic farming, a beautiful symbol of "reconciliation of respect for the environment, logic of development and sporting ambition" as Matignon claims. The rejection of the project, if it occurs, would be more the result of the corruption of the local executive than of a genuine concern for respect for the environment. Indeed, Mr. Béder, UMP president of the General Council of Yvelines , has just seen confirmed on May 20, 2009 by the Court of Cassation his sentence 18 months suspended prison sentence, 6 years of ineligibility, 3 years of deprivation of civil rights and 25.000 euros in fines for "passive corruption" and " concealment of misuse of corporate property ”. When I proposed to the Alliance for the Planet to map incompatible Grenello projects, we then had to make a diagnosis of the possibility of questioning them, according to their degree of progress.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualit ... _pale.html

[Former Oceano]

It sucks, not counting the trips to get there.

Why not do an F1 competition in Marseille. There are all the desired trajectories. In addition it would be between Barcelona and Monaco, no need to go north and then back down to Monaco.

I can see the thing.
Start on the Prado 2. Installation of stands on the back alleys or between Borrely beach and the David (there are plenty of usable parking lots). Prado roundabout taken in the opposite direction (chicane), acceleration to Périer, right turn in the Turca Mery alleys, take a tunnel then the Prado Carénage tunnel, exit at the Old Port, passage in front of the Palais du Pharo , the Catalans, crossing the village of Endoume then the Corniche with its bends and the view of the sea to arrive at the David, turn to the left and take the Prado 2.

Nothing to build, no ecosystem to break (the thousands of cars taking these avenues pollute more than 20 unhappy F1 cars doing 60 laps), we stay on the Barcelona-Monaco route, just insert it. Marseille is well served by TER and TGV, the airport is nearby.

In short, why build a circuit that will remain unused almost all the time (except for tests but there remains the Castellet and Manicourt for that) when we can very well do this in a large metroplole by placing stands on a large part of the route (Corniche / Prado 1 and 2 / Allées Turcat Méry) for the public to attend the show. In addition to access the stands, there is the Metro at Périer, at the Rond point du Prado ...

That's idea launched. I'm going to launch it elsewhere ...