On 4 May 2021, the Climate and Resilience Bill was passed by the French National Assembly by 332 votes to 77, with 145 abstentions. It is expected to go before the Senate in June. Based on the recommendations of the Citizens’ Climate Convention, it includes 149 measures, presented by the majority as a major turning point for the “greening” of everyone’s life. However, it is criticised by many as not responding to the presidential promises or the climate emergency.
A HIJACKED CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE
For nine months, 150 citizens selected by lot and brought together in the Citizens’ Convention on Climate (CCC) were able to debate together and propose a range of measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. This unprecedented democratic experiment in France, conducted in a spirit of social justice and with representation of the French population, made it possible to propose 150 measures divided into five chapters: housing, transport, food, consumption, production, and work.
Originally, President Emmanuel Macron had pledged that these proposals would be directly submitted, “unfiltered,” either to a referendum, a vote in Parliament, or to direct regulatory application. However, if three “passes” were initially requested by the president to dismiss some propositions, the climate bill has now been substantially modified. Indeed, when it arrived at the National Assembly, only 10% of proposed measures were taken up in the bill as-is; half of the proposals had been rejected or not implemented, while 37% had been modified. In addition, 20-25% of the 7,000 amendments tabled were deemed inadmissible [in French], and debates were shortened to meet the tight schedule for the adoption of the bill.
Among the measures that were not adopted or that were emptied of all substance, which were less-than-revolutionary: the end of domestic flights in case of an alternative lasting less than four hours (this was transformed into a ban when the alternative lasts less than 2.5 hours); the increase of the ecotax on air tickets; the eradication of thermal flats; the reduction of VAT on train tickets; the reduction of speed on motorways; the end of heated terraces in 2021; and the creation of the crime of ecocide. The only measure retained is implementation of a daily vegetarian option in school cafeterias starting in 2023. The fact remains that this measure, though, is not within the power of local authorities but rather of school administrators. As Greenpeace points out [in French] “pupils in secondary schools will only be able to access vegetarian options when their managers decide to do so”.
As for the bill aimed at including the environment in article 1 of the French Constitution, it is made uncertain by the recent vote of the Senate. The law-making body was reluctant to include the term “guarantee,” preferring instead the term “preservation” of the environment and biodiversity, which is much less binding and meaningful in legal terms. Here again, attention was focused on a few symbolic measures to the detriment of important reforms in relation to global objectives.
A PROJECT SORELY LACKING IN REALISM
France, which took centre stage at the time of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement aimed at limiting global warming to below 2°C, has been committed since 2019 to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. A major step the country has committed to take is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40% by 2030 (still compared to 1990). However, while this target was initially in line with those of the European Union (EU), the EU is now aiming for a 55% reduction, and the European Parliament took another step forward last year by giving the green light to a 60% reduction. Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that emissions should be reduced by 65% to 90% by 2050 to keep global warming below 1.5°C. Thus, France’s lack of ambition is not only reckless, but it is also out of step with the EU and goes against the scientific consensus and what some of its European neighbours are proposing.
The French High Council on Climate (HCC) [in French] believes that France’s actions to reduce GHGs are still largely insufficient to achieve all these objectives, and that timid legislation will only delay the deadline and intensify the urgency of ambitious action to catch up. In its opinion on the draft Climate and Resilience Bill, the HCC regrets “a lack of ambition on the scope, perimeter and timing” of the proposed reforms.
As a reminder, 2019 was the hottest year on record in Europe. While the containment of the world's population in 2020 has helped to slow down GHG emissions, such a dynamic is not sustainable in the long term and structural actions must be considered quickly. It is urgent that the government and the parliament shorten and clarify the timeframe in order to engage a sustained pace of action and prioritise measures towards high GHG-emitting sectors. It is also, however, a matter of democratic legitimacy that citizens’ voices are heard by parliamentarians, especially when they are in line with global imperatives and not undermined by economic considerations of another time. Finally, the fight against climate change cannot effectively move forward without European coherence and consolidated action from the member states.
Sara Chollet recently obtained her Master’s in Public Policies at the École Normale Supérieure in Rennes (France). During her studies in Åbo Akademi (Finland), she specialised on human rights and migration law. She is currently doing an internship at the French embassy in Stockholm. Next year, she will continue her studies with a Master’s in Humanitarian Law. Sara has a strong interest in migration, women’s rights and LGBTQI+ issues.