Greening the industrial base while attracting new investments that respect the environment… The green industry bill, which senators are considering this week, tries to meet this dual challenge. Patrice Geoffron, Professor of Economics at Paris Dauphine-PSL University, is skeptical about France’s ability to reduce industrial emissions to the level targeted by 2030. However, he underlines the lasting attractiveness of Europe in terms of green technologies.
L’Express: Has French industry already started to green its practices? Are we lagging behind other industrialized countries?
Patrice Geoffron: We cannot really speak of a delay except perhaps in relation to certain countries in northern Europe; and, structurally, French industry has access to more carbon-free electricity than our neighbors (even if electricity obviously does not cover all needs). A particular point of vigilance, however: freight still relies too heavily on the road (with a modal share of rail which is half of that which it occupies in Germany for example), while the decarbonization of industry also depends that of supply chains. That said, we must above all be aware of the importance of the breakthroughs to be undertaken: by 2030, according to the figures shared by the Prime Minister, CO2 emissions from industry will have to be reduced from 72 Mts to 45, whereas they have only fallen by… 2 Mt since 2019.
Many observers have denounced the very insufficient and all-encompassing nature of this bill. Is this your opinion? Is it doomed to failure in advance?
I find this judgment quite severe, even if I remain skeptical about the ability to reduce emissions to the level targeted in 2030. The difficulty is that the bill contains 2 objectives: to “green” the current industrial base and attract new investments in “green” industrial sectors (one thinks, of course, of the gigafactories of batteries for electric vehicles). Beyond the complexity of the project, uncertainties remain: what capacity will we have to produce carbon-free hydrogen from nuclear?
Several amendments have been tabled to modify the text. Can this change anything? In particular, is it vain to think that we will be able to direct private savings towards green industry? (in the past this did not work)
We will not be able to accelerate the transition without there being a broad understanding in the population of both the issues and the levers, including in the industry. We also observe that the need to have access to green savings products was a recommendation of the citizens’ convention for the climate. Naturally, it is a question of giving the possibility to households who so wish to be associated with these financing needs, but without the orientation of these savings being made to the detriment of other “projects”, such as that of the social housing. The Pisani-Ferry report has set the orders of magnitude: it will be necessary to invest, for the decarbonisation of the entire economy, of the order of 70 billion euros per year and, in the best case scenario, the the State will only be able to finance half of it…
The project aims primarily to facilitate the establishment of factories. But to what extent can it reindustrialise France?
First of all, it is a question of stopping deindustrialisation as it has been observed for decades: in 50 years, the share of industry in GDP has been halved, dropping from 22 to 11% (2, 5 million industrial jobs were destroyed). The plan provides, which is essential, to reduce the processing time for applications (currently twice as long as in Germany), and to adapt industrial wasteland in such a way as to be able to accommodate new projects, without increasing the pressure also by increasing land take (but there seem to be tensions on this point within the government). One of the challenges is to ensure that the location projects have the highest employment content: France is already very attractive at European level, but this attractiveness drains fewer jobs than in Germany. For example.
To counter the American Inflation Act, and move forward on decarbonization, we must encourage investment and simplify the rules. Is Europe on the right track on these two criteria?
It is striking that it is probably not the volume of subsidies that really makes the difference on the American side, but the ease with which they are granted. In this area, Europe suffers from its internal complexity and fragmentation (and, let’s face it, from internal competition between its members). In addition, the geography is to the advantage of the United States, which is a much less dense group than Europe (and the availability of land and its cost are also important elements of attractiveness). But, beyond this observation, Europe will remain a top-tier market for many green technologies, which obviously constitutes a factor of attractiveness.
Are you in favor of tougher sanctions against companies? For example, those that do not produce a carbon footprint?
Although it is difficult to answer this question in general terms, it seems obvious to me that it will not be possible to decarbonise… without carbon accounting. Companies that do not submit to this imperative are therefore at fault (and do not have the tools to deploy an effective strategy). But, beyond companies alone, it is our community as a whole that must increase its skills, including households, with regard to the footprint of their consumption and their investments.