How many billions must France put on the table each year in order to correctly take climate change into account? 15, 30, 50 billion euros? Or even more? For the time being, the candidates for the presidential election are content to list a list of green measures without any real coherence. However, our country will have to one day establish a real climate budget.
Faced with this problem, there is no single solution. Because establishing a budget means making choices about the use of subsidies, prohibitions, taxation… However, some orders of magnitude are already circulating. According to the European Commission, the Old Continent must increase its public and private investments by 520 billion euros over the current decade in order to meet its climate objectives. France’s effort, which represents approximately 20% of the area’s GDP, would therefore be 100 billion.
The Institute of Economics for Climate (I4CE) has also made its calculations. Good news to start with: all state spending favorable to the climate (development of public transport, aid for the acquisition of low-carbon vehicles, aid for the renovation of housing, etc.) is progressing. They have increased in two years from 20 to almost 30 billion euros. But this is not enough. Still according to the I4CE, there would be a shortfall of 13 to 17 billion per year over the period 2021-2023 so that our country remains on target with regard to its low carbon strategy (SNBC). And double that amount would be needed for the period 2023-2024.
“It is a lowering of the need for investment, comments Morgane Nicol, director of the Territories program at the I4CE. The current SNBC was based on European objectives revised upwards since. Its new version, planned to be adopted from by the end of 2024 will undoubtedly be more ambitious. Furthermore, our analysis only covers the efforts to be made in three sectors: energy, transport and construction. Expenditure relating to support or activities to promote behavioral changes have not been taken into account either, nor have the costs associated with adaptation, in other words measures aimed at reducing our vulnerability to the effects of climate change. few figures exist for the moment”.
Nevertheless, the studies seem to converge on one point: Investing for the climate seems completely feasible. “The order of magnitude of the needs is not staggering compared to the State budget or that of the local authorities, whose overall investments reach nearly 200 billion euros over five years”, notes an expert, member of the association Le Lierre. However, the budget is not just about numbers. “We need coordination, transparency and a multi-year public finance programming plan dedicated to the climate. The term is a bit technical, but this initiative is about making the choices that will be made explicit and discuss it publicly, in order to identify who will bear the cost of the transition”, indicates Morgane Nicol.
“We remain in the dark”
For example, funding for renovation of buildings can be done in different ways. Some refer to the granting of loans by a public/private fund. But for this to work, the state must put in place the right incentives. Moreover, some households do not have the capacity to go into debt. In this case, public money is needed. The renovation also requires the training of craftsmen. Who will bear this cost? These questions also arise for other sectors.
“Today on the climate, we are very far from having a precise, exhaustive and operational budget, confirms a public finance specialist. We should be able to categorize the projects to know if they are in line or not with the low strategy carbon, even imperfectly. But for the time being, we remain completely in the dark: local authorities, for example, do not have indicators to align themselves with national objectives. Citizens would however like to know how their city in this area. Worse, the economy still takes precedence over the rest. For example, Bercy does not feel bound by the national low-carbon strategy. Certainly, there is better, but when it comes to arbitration, no one says: stop, we can’t do this or that because it’s not compatible with our climate objectives”.
“The multi-annual program that we are asking for would be an opportunity to debate expenditure having an unfavorable impact on the climate, such as tax shelters on non-road diesel, believes Morgane Nicol. We understand why they are necessary from a economic. But today the question is: how do we plan their end without harming the actors concerned”.