Rising energy prices and declining purchasing power: green people are the first victims

Nicolas Beytout 8:00 a.m., October 21, 2021

Fuel check or lower taxes, the government is always looking for the right formula to mitigate the price shock on fuel.

And there is urgency. As noted by the regional press at the beginning of the week, yellow vests reappeared on roundabouts in several regions. Oh, not in great numbers, but you could see them, and it would be amazing if there weren't more of them next weekend. It is therefore necessary that an announcement be made very quickly, and that it be implemented just as quickly. Six months before the presidential election, we can clearly see that the government is watching like milk on fire everything that may appear unpleasant for households and erode their purchasing power: the technical inspection of motorcycles has been postponed, the obligation to fitting snow tires in certain departments was lifted, and again yesterday, the programmed reduction in the bonus granted in the event of the purchase of an electric car was postponed.However, these subjects concerned only fractions of the population. So, when we talk about fuel prices, a subject that concerns almost all French people, the danger changes scale.

What you are describing looks like a trap.

And it is.

Each setback, each small arrangement to postpone the slightest potentially unpopular measure after the presidential election feeds the maximum (and immediate) demand on the price of fuel.

Now, and this is another trap, everything that has been tried so far by the government has been deemed insufficient;

energy check, once, twice, tariff shield for gas, for electricity, and despite that, a deregulated market and prices which continue to soar.

The only good solution would be to do education and take advantage of this somewhat insane period in terms of energy to start accustoming the French to this inevitable thing in the future that is the increase in carbon energy prices. .

You say the same thing as Sandrine Rousseau.

Apparently, yes. The only difference is the timing. All economists explain that the transformation of our lifestyles requires a gradual increase in the costs of oil and gas, both because natural resources are limited, and because we must gradually encourage households to switch to this economy, even if it means helping them, for the less wealthy among them. The former Greens primary candidate says something different. She asserts that "we must increase the price of gasoline". Everything is in the "must", a typical expression of punitive ecology. This "must" gives an impression of immediacy; and then, "we must increase", that means that an increase must still be added to all the price increases due to the market. Besides,Yannick Jadot's team was not mistaken, they were furious. The green presidential candidate preferred to insist on his promise to give an energy check of 400 euros to nearly five million households. In reality, this surge in gasoline prices is also a trap for green people. We now know with certainty that this energy transition cannot be done at zero cost. It therefore poses a particular risk to low-income households, which form part of the electorate of the Greens. Except that the solution proposed by Yannick Jadot, this energy check, is heresy: it amounts to subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuels. For this political party, the rise in energy prices creates an impossible situation, a sort of diabolical equation:how to respect its commitment on the climate without despairing and even plunging some of its voters into difficulty. At the moment, there is no good solution.